Summary and Analysis of Shah Samir Bharatbhai & Ors vs State of Gujarat & Ors

1. Heading of the Judgment

Shah Samir Bharatbhai & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2025 INSC 1026)
Decided on: August 22, 2025
Coram: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Topic: Application of the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" to contractually appointed Assistant Professors in government engineering colleges.

Citation: Shah Samir Bharatbhai & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2025) INSC 1026

2. Related Laws and Legal Principles

The judgment is based on the interpretation and application of the following constitutional and legal principles:

• Article 14 of the Constitution of India (Right to Equality): The foundation for the principle that there cannot be arbitrary discrimination in pay for employees performing identical work.

• Doctrine of "Equal Pay for Equal Work": A well-established judicial principle that mandates that individuals performing the same duties and functions must receive equal remuneration, regardless of their mode of appointment (regular, ad-hoc, or contractual).

• Precedents:
  State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148: Held that temporary employees are entitled to the minimum of the pay scale if they are performing the same duties as permanent employees.
  Sabha Shanker Dube vs. Divisional Forest Officer (2019) 12 SCC 297: Affirmed that the claim for minimum pay scale is distinct from regularization and is a right flowing from the principle of equal pay for equal work.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Origin: A group of appeals arising from two judgments of the Gujarat High Court.

• Parties:
  Appellants in first set: The State of Gujarat, challenging High Court orders that granted relief to contractual teachers.
  Appellants in second set: Contractually appointed Assistant Professors, challenging a High Court order that denied them relief.

• Core Dispute: Whether Assistant Professors appointed on a contractual basis by the Government of Gujarat are entitled to pay parity (specifically, the minimum of the pay scale) with their regularly appointed and ad-hoc colleagues who perform identical duties.

• Background: For nearly two decades, a vast majority of sanctioned teaching posts in Government Engineering and Polytechnic Colleges in Gujarat remained vacant. To address this, the state made appointments on an ad-hoc and contractual basis. While ad-hoc appointees eventually received better pay, contractual appointees were stuck with a fixed, stagnant salary of Rs. 25,000-30,000 per month since 2009-2012, with no increments, while their regular and ad-hoc counterparts earned significantly more (over Rs. 1.36 lakhs and Rs. 1.16 lakhs per month respectively by 2025) for the same work.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

The Supreme Court's judgment addresses two sets of appeals sequentially.

Part I: State of Gujarat's Appeals (Dismissed)

The State appealed against High Court orders that directed it to pay contractual Assistant Professors the minimum of the pay scale of a regular Assistant Professor.

• State's Argument: The State argued that contractual appointments are governed by the specific terms of the contract. Since the selection process and nature of appointment were different from regular recruitment, the principle of pay parity could not be applied.

• Supreme Court's Reasoning and Decision:
  Identical Work, Different Pay: The Court found it an "egregious" and "disturbing" fact that contractual appointees, possessing the same qualifications (M.Tech) and performing the exact same duties (teaching the same students in the same colleges) as regular and ad-hoc appointees, were paid a paltry, fixed sum for over a decade while others received proper salaries with increments.
  Finality of Precedent: The Court noted that the issue was already settled. In the earlier case of Acharya Madhavi Bhavin & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, the Gujarat High Court (and subsequently the Supreme Court) had already granted the minimum pay scale to ad-hoc appointees. In State of Gujarat v. Gohel Vishal Chhaganbhai, the same relief was extended to contractual appointees, and the State's appeal against it was dismissed.
  Equal Pay for Equal Work: The Court strongly reaffirmed the constitutional principle of "equal pay for equal work." It held that the mode of appointment (contractual) cannot be used to deny this fundamental right when the nature of the work performed is identical.
  Moral Responsibility: The Court expressed deep concern over the state's treatment of teachers, who form the "intellectual backbone of the nation." It criticized the hypocrisy of revering teachers ("gururbrahma...") in speeches while denying them dignified emoluments in practice.

Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeals, upholding the High Court's order to pay the contractual appointees the minimum of the pay scale with arrears.

Part II: Contractual Assistant Professors' Appeals (Allowed)

A different group of contractual appointees had won a greater relief from a Single Judge of the High Court, who directed that they be paid the full pay scale (not just the minimum) of a regular Assistant Professor. The State appealed, and a Division Bench of the High Court, instead of modifying the order, set it aside entirely and dismissed their petitions.

• Supreme Court's Reasoning and Decision:
  Error by the Division Bench: The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench of the High Court committed a serious error. The Single Judge was indeed wrong in granting the full pay scale, as the binding precedent (Gohel Vishal case) only granted the minimum of the pay scale. However, the correct course for the Division Bench was to modify the Single Judge's order to align with the precedent, not to dismiss the petitions altogether and deny all relief.
  Restoration of Justice: The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's order. It granted the same relief to this group of appellants as was granted in the Gohel Vishal case: entitlement to the minimum of the pay scale of a regular Assistant Professor, with arrears calculated at 8% interest from three years prior to the filing of their writ petitions.
  Future Recourse: The Court noted the appellants' long service and left it open for them to approach the High Court to seek further remedies, such as regularization or a rationalized pay structure, based on their continued long-term service.

Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the contractual Assistant Professors and directed the State to pay them the minimum of the pay scale as per the established precedent.

This judgment is a powerful reinforcement of the "equal pay for equal work" doctrine. It prevents the government from using the "contractual appointment" label as a tool to create an exploitative dual-wage system for employees performing identical public functions. The court prioritized substantive justice over procedural technicalities, ensuring that thousands of teachers received long-overdue financial justice.