sanctioned posts - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Upholds “Equal Pay for Equal Work” for Contractual Assistant Professors

25Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds “Equal Pay for Equal Work” for Contractual Assistant Professors

The Supreme Court affirmed the principle of "equal pay for equal work" for contractually appointed Assistant Professors performing identical duties as their regular and ad-hoc counterparts. It directed the State to pay them the minimum of the pay scale applicable to the post, holding that the nature of the appointment (contractual) does not negate the entitlement to pay parity when the work is the same. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from the State of Gujarat where a significant number of sanctioned posts for Assistant Professors in Government Engineering and Polytechnic colleges remained vacant for years. To address this shortage, the state government made appointments on both ad hoc and contractual bases. The respondents were Assistant Professors appointed on a contractua...

Doctrine of Severability: Supreme Court Says Don’t Punish the Innocent for Administrative Lapses

The Supreme Court distinguished between irregular and illegal appointments, holding that procedural lapses not attributable to the appointees do not render appointments void if made against sanctioned posts by competent authority. The doctrine of severability applies to protect valid appointments from en masse cancellation, ensuring compliance with Articles 14 and 16. Natural justice mandates individual scrutiny before termination. Facts Of The Case: The appellants were initially appointed to Class-IV posts in the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (JSEB) between 2004–2006. Subsequently, they applied for and were selected for Class-III posts (Routine Clerk and Lower Division Assistant) through an internal recruitment process in 2009, pursuant to a standing order. Their appointments were f...

Supreme Court Slams “Ad-hocism”: Orders Regularization of Employees After 30+ Years of Service

This Supreme Court judgment reaffirms that the State, as a constitutional employer, cannot deny regularization of perennial work performed by long-serving ad hoc employees. Arbitrary refusals to sanction posts based on financial constraints violate Articles 14, 16, and 21. The Court mandated the creation of supernumerary posts for regularization, emphasizing that outsourcing cannot justify exploitation or circumvent the duty to provide fair and secure employment. Facts Of The Case: The appellants were engaged as daily wage employees (Class-III Driver and Class-IV Peons/Attendants) by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission between 1989 and 1992. They performed regular, perennial duties essential to the Commission's functioning. In 1991, the Commission itself resolved to create four...