Teachers Are Not Second-Class Citizens - Equal Pay for Equal Work Is Not a Promise in Principle but a Mandate in Practice: Supreme Court Orders Parity for Contractual Assistant Professors

“We Can’t Worship Teachers in Verses and Neglect Them in Wages” - Supreme Court of India delivered a powerful indictment of the Gujarat government’s persistent undervaluation of its contractual teaching staff. The Court held that Assistant Professors appointed on a contractual basis are entitled to the minimum pay scale admissible to their regular counterparts, applying the constitutional doctrine of “equal pay for equal work.”

The bench, comprising Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, categorically rejected the state’s argument that contractual status could justify long-term, systemic pay disparity when job functions remained identical. Emphasizing the moral and constitutional duty to uphold the dignity of educators, the Court declared:

“It is just not enough to keep reciting gurubrahma gururvishnu gurudevo maheshwarah at public functions. If we believe in this declaration, it must be reflected in the way the nation treats its teachers.”

The appeals arose from divergent judgments passed by the Gujarat High Court. In one set of cases, contractually appointed Assistant Professors had been granted minimum of the pay scale by a Single Judge, later upheld by a Division Bench. In another set, similarly placed Assistant Professors received full parity with regular Assistant Professors, including annual increments and all benefits from the date of appointment. However, in appeal, the Division Bench reversed this latter judgment entirely, denying even minimum pay scale — forcing the aggrieved contractual teachers to approach the Supreme Court.

These professors had been recruited through public advertisements, via rigorous merit-based selection, and had been working in government engineering colleges for over a decade, performing duties identical to those of ad hoc and regular Assistant Professors. Despite this, their monthly salary had remained stagnant at Rs. 30,000/-, without increments or basic benefits.

Denial of Parity is Unjust, Unconstitutional

Refusing to accept the contractual label as a justification for inequality, the Court held: “There is no functional difference pointed out by the State in their work… They are discharging the same responsibilities, teaching to the same students, in the same Government Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics.”

The Court criticized the state for attempting to defeat constitutional rights through technicality, stating unequivocally:

“More than the justifiable claim for parity, it is rather disturbing to see how lecturers, holding the post of Assistant Professors, continue to be paid and subsist on such low salaries for almost two decades.”

On Legal Precedents and Principle of Parity

Citing Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2017) and Sabha Shanker Dube v. DFO (2019), the Court reiterated:

“Temporary employees are entitled to minimum of the pay scales as long as they continue in service.”

The Gujarat High Court’s earlier rulings in Acharya Madhavi Bhavin and Gohel Vishal Chhaganbhai had recognized this parity. The Supreme Court criticized the Division Bench for departing from those binding precedents, observing:

“The Division Bench should have followed the decisions of two co-ordinate Benches of the same Court.”

The Stark Inequality: A Comparative Table

The Court recorded the glaring wage disparity:

Calling this “disturbing,” the Court noted: “It is high time that the State takes up the issue and rationalize the pay structure on the basis of functions that they perform.”

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, held that contractual Assistant Professors shall be entitled to the minimum pay scale, and ordered:

“Arrears calculated at the rate of 8% shall be paid from three years preceding the date of filing of the writ petitions.”

Additionally, the Court left the door open for these teachers to seek further remedies, including regularization, noting that their continued service deserves judicial consideration.

“We leave it open to the appellants and such similarly placed Assistant Professors to work out their remedies before the High Court in view of their continued service for a long period.”

A Moral Reckoning for Public Institutions

The judgment serves not only as a legal vindication but as a moral rebuke to the State’s decades-long practice of exploiting educated professionals under the guise of temporary contracts. In one of the most evocative remarks of the ruling, the Supreme Court reminded the nation:

“If we believe in Guru Brahma, it must reflect in the way the nation treats its teachers.”

This is not just a case about salary — it is a case about dignity, about constitutional equality, and about recognizing that those who shape minds must not be condemned to institutional indignity.

Date of Decision: August 22, 2025