Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dr B Veera Raghavaiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 September, 2025
APHC010639902023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3460]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO:33043/2023
Between:
1. DR B VEERA RAGHAVAIAH, S/O RAMAIAH, AGED.46
YEARS, OCC ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR (C)/SENIOR
FACULTY, (DEPT OF PHYSICS), QUALIFICATION PH.D,
M.PHIL, M.SC (PHYSICS), RGUKT ONGOLE CAMPUS, R/O.
D.NO.4-3-34/LA, 13TH WARD, YADAVAPALEM, BAPATLA
DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
AND
1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, HIGHER (TECHNICAL) EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATHI.
2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.
3. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF KNOWLEDGE
TECHNOLOGIES, , REP BY THE REGISTRAR, 1-3,
ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, RGUKT - NUZVID CAMPUS,
MYLAVARAM ROAD, NUZVID, ELURU DISTRICT-521202.
2
4. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITYIIIT, ONGOLE CAMPUS,
PRAKASAM DISTRICT REP. BY THE DIRECTOR.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the
High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the
action of the action of the respondents in issuing proceedings vide
IIIT Ongole/ RGUKT/ Director/ Order/ Renewal/ 2019-20/06 dated
29.06.2019 and RGUKT/OGL/AO/Estt/Office Order/2019-20/01
dated 03.12.2019 and reducing the petitioner pay from Rs.75,000/-
per month to Rs.40,000/- and reducing the designation from
Associate Professor (Physics) to Senior Faculty and later to
Assistant Professor without following any known process of law and
not considering the petitioners representations dated 21.10.2019,
28.11.2021, 02.11.2022 and 23.04.2023 is illegal, arbitrary, violation
of fundamental rights guaranteed under Art.14, 16, 21 and 23 of
Constitution of India and violation of 3 00A of the Constitution of
India. Consequently set aside IIIT Ongole/ RGUKT/ Director/
Order/Reneway2019-20/06, dated 29.06.2019 and RGUKT/ OGL/
AO/ Estt/ Office Order/ 2019-20/01, dated 03.12.2019 and direct the
respondents to designate the petitioner as Associate Professor with
Rs.75,000/- per month and also direct the respondents to pay salary
arrears from 01.07.2019 and pass such other order.
IA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider
the representations dated 21.10.2019, 28.11.2021, 02.11.2022 and
23.04.2023 and pay Rs.75,000/- salary per month as per initial
appointment dated 05.07.2017 and designation as per the selection
committee minutes dated 10-05-2017 and pass appropriate orders
pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass such other
order.
3
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. THANDAVA YOGESH
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PITHANI CHANDRA SEKHARA REDDY (SC FOR RGUKT)
2. GP FOR SERVICES I
3. GP FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION
The Court made the following:
4
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION No.33043 of 2023
ORDER:
1. The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of Respondents in issuing Proceedings vide IIIT Ongole/RGUKT/ Director/Order/Renewal/ 2019-20/06, dated 29.06.2019 and RGUKT/ OGL/AO/Estt/Office Order/2019-20/01, dated 03.12.2019 by reducing the pay of Petitioner from Rs.75,000/- to Rs.40,000/- and changing the designation from Associate Professor (Physics) to Senior Faculty and later to Assistant Professor without following any known process of law, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The facts leading to filing of the present Writ Petition are as follows;
Respondent No.3 is Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies (RGUKT) established by the State Government in the year 2008. A Public Notification was issued by Respondent No.3 on 09.04.2017 vide Ref: IIIT OGL/RGUKT-AP/Faculty/T01/2017 inviting applications for Senior Faculty positions (teaching) from eligible candidates in the areas of Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, Social Sciences, Statistics, Management, Humanities, Computer Science & Engineering (CSE) and Civil Engineering on "annual contract basis". 5 The positions were stated to be purely temporary and carry consolidated emoluments without any allowances.
3. The Petitioner who was working as Assistant Professor in Physics at University College of Engineering & Technology, Acharya Nagarjuna University with Ph.D and M. Phil qualifications apart from 26 international publications had applied for the post of Senior Faculty. An interview was conducted on 10.05.2017 and pursuant thereto, the Petitioner was appointed as Associate Professor in Physics "on contract basis" under BC-D category as per the Minutes of Selection Committee which were released on 10.05.2017. However, in the office order issued by Respondent No.4 on 05.07.2017, it was stated that Petitioner was appointed as Associate Professor (Guest Faculty) in the Department of Physics with a consolidated remuneration of Rs.75,000/- per month.
4. It is further stated that the contract of the Petitioner was renewed by Respondent No.4 on 29.06.2019, but the salary of the Petitioner was reduced from Rs.75,000/- to Rs.65,000/-. The Petitioner received a mail on 17.10.2019 from Respondent No.4 and the Petitioner had to accept the same with a reduced salary of Rs.40,000/- per month contrary to the initial appointment. 6
5. Thereafter, the Petitioner had given representations on various dates to restore his designation as Associate Professor with the salary at the rate of Rs.75,000/- and the same be paid with effect from 01.07.2019. As the said representations were not being considered, the present Writ Petition is filed.
6. In the Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent No.4, it is stated that the Petitioner was initially appointed as 'Guest Faculty' though there is no such post in the institution. It is further stated that a three men committee was constituted to verify the series of applications filed pursuant to the notification. It is also stated that there is anomaly in fixation of salary at the rate of Rs.75,000/- to the Petitioner though the designation is only that of a 'Guest Faculty'.
7. As the Petitioner was working as 'Guest Faculty', a mail was sent on 02.12.2019 to the Chancellor seeking for approval to change the designation and salary for the 'Senior Faculty' and the same was approved on 03.12.2019 and accordingly the salary of the Petitioner was revised from Rs.65,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per month.
8. The learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the appointment of the Petitioner was pursuant to the notification for appointment 'on contract basis' and the 'Guest Faculty' was not 7 advertised by them. It is also contended that the Petitioner was continued 'on contract basis' as apparent from the Proceedings dated 01.10.2018 as well as the impugned Proceedings dated 03.12.2019 and therefore fixation of pay at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month is not similar to Assistant Professors in the institution. The learned counsel would submit that the regular Assistant Professors were being paid higher salaries than Rs.40,000/-.
9. The learned counsel for the Respondents would contend that the Petitioner was appointed as 'Guest Faculty' and therefore the scale is fixed in tune with the scale payable to the 'Guest Faculty' and therefore the impugned order need not be interfered with. It is further stated that the appointment of the Petitioner is purely "on contractual basis" and it is left open to the Petitioner to continue in the institution or may look for avenues in any other institution.
10. Heard Mr. Thandava Yogesh, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Pithani Chandra Sekhara Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.3-University.
11. Reasoning:
The entire case revolves around as to whether the Petitioner is a 'Guest Faculty' or a 'Contract Employee'. In the notification issued 8 on 09.04.2017, Respondent No.4 institution requires 'Senior Faculty' on "Annual Contract Basis" and the post would carry consolidated emoluments. In the Minutes of Selection Committee conducted on 10.05.2017, it is mentioned that the Petitioner was appointed purely "on contract basis". However, in the office order dated 05.07.2017, the designation of the Petitioner was shown as 'Guest Faculty' on a temporary basis.
12. There is no explanation by the Respondent No.3-institution as to why there has been a change in the designation of the Petitioner from "Contract Employee" to that of "Guest Faculty" contrary to the Notification issued on 09.04.2017 and the minutes of the selection panel. The Counter Affidavit of the Respondents is busy denying their own proceedings from the nature of appointment of Petitioner and questioning the selection panel's ability to select the Petitioner.
13. Be that as it may, there appears to be no difference vis-a-vis the nature of duties as a contract employee or guest faculty as the Petitioner was entrusted with the responsibility employee of Controller of Examination and Administrative Officer for two successive years from 2017 to 2019 as per the Service Certificate issued on 27.1.2020. The fact that the Petitioner is treated as a regular Lecturer/contract Lecturer is further apparent from the fact 9 that the Petitioner is given the designation of 'Assistant Professor' and is being paid monthly salary very unlike a 'Guest faculty', who would not be given any designation and would be paid per class or conditions akin thereto. In the Counter Affidavit, there is absolutely no plea that the nature of the job of the Petitioner is different from the regular or a contract employee.
14. In the absence of any such distinction, this Court taking note of the appointment of the Petitioner through a public notification for contract employee, minutes of the selection committee, designation as "Assistant professor" and the full time duties given to the Petitioner i.e. Controller of Examinations/Administrative Officer as mentioned supra is not inclined to treat the Petitioner differently than any other senior faculty contract employee. Further, this Court taking note of the academic qualifications is of the opinion that the Petitioner would be entitled for the minimum scale of pay as is given to regular Associate Professor.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shah Samir Bharat Bhai and ors Vs State of Gujarat1 while considering parity of pay between contracted Associate Professor and regularly appointed Associate Professor noted huge gap in the pay between these two classes of 1 2025 Livelaw(SC) 827 10 employees and opined that such contracted Professors are entitled to basic pay of regular employee. The observations at Paragraph Nos.4, 5, 18, 22 and 33 are extracted below:
"4. Academicians, lecturers and professors are the intellectual backbone of any nation, as they dedicate their lives to shaping the minds and character of future generations. Their work goes far beyond delivering lessons--it involves mentoring, guiding research, nurturing critical thinking, and instilling values that contribute to the progress of society. However, in many contexts, the compensation and recognition extended to them do not truly reflect the significance of their contribution. When educators are not treated with dignity or offered respectable emoluments, it diminishes the value a country places on knowledge and undermines the motivation of those entrusted with building its intellectual capital. By ensuring fair remuneration and dignified treatment, we affirm the importance of their role and reinforce the nation's commitment to quality education, innovation, and a brighter future for its youth.
5. It is just not enough to keep reciting gurubramha gururvishnu gurdevo maheshwarah at public functions. If we believe in this declaration, it must be reflected in the way the nation treats its teachers.
18. Analysis: 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.....
22. In Sabha Shanker Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer, 2019 (12) SCC 297 while drawing the distinction between claims for regularization, and 11 parity in pay, this Court affirmed the constitutional principle of equal pay for equal work and held:
"12. In view of the judgment in Jagjit Singh [State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh 5], we are unable to uphold the view of the High Court that the appellants herein are not entitled to be paid the minimum of the pay scales. We are not called upon to adjudicate on the rights of the appellants relating to the regularisation of their services. We are concerned only with the principle laid down by this Court initially in Putti Lal [State of U.P. v. Putti Lal 6], relating to persons who are similarly situated to the appellants and later affirmed in Jagjit Singh [State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh], that temporary employees are entitled to minimum of the pay scales as long as they continue in service." (emphasis supplied)
33. It is disturbing that Assistant Professors are getting monthly emoluments of Rs. 30,000/-. It is high time that the State takes up the issue and rationalize the pay structure on the basis of functions that they perform. For the present we have followed the decisions of the Gujarat High Court in Acharya Madhavi (supra) and Gohel Vishal Chhaganbhai (supra) to grant appellants the same relief as in those cases. 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. It is for the High Court to consider the same and pass orders as per law.
16. In the above Judgement, the claims of regularisation were left open to be decided in an independent case, but affirmed the Judgement of Division Bench of Gujarat High Court for grant of minimum scale of pay attached to the post of Assistant Professor. 12 This case as narrated above is not different and the Petitioner would be entitled for the minimum pay attached to the post of Assistant Professor.
17. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions;
(i) The Respondents shall pay to the Petitioner the minimum scale of pay attached to the post of 'Assistant Professor' with effect from 03.12.2019.
(ii) Time calendared to the Respondents for compliance is three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
(iii) No order as to costs.
18. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 01.09.2025 IS 13 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.33043of 2023 Date: 01.09.2025 IS