Madras High Court
C.Prabhu vs State Of Tamilnadu on 27 November, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.No.46545 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.46545 of 2025
C.Prabhu ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1.State of Tamilnadu
Rep. By Its Principal Secretary to Government,
Higher Education Department,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai 600 009
2.The Registrar
Ann University,
Guindy, Chennai 600 025
3.The Dean
University College of Engineering Ariyalur,
(Constituent College of Anna Univeristy, Chennai)
Ariyalur, Ariyalur District ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to pass
orders for regularization / permanent absorption of the petitioner as Assistant
professor in the Respondent University with effect form the date of appointment
with all consequential and other attendant benefits, including payment of arrears
of salary, in the light of the orders passed in W.A. No 898 of 2021 etc. cases
dated 01.04.2025, in consideration of representation submitted by the petitioner
within a time frame.
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/01/2026 05:43:38 pm )
W.P.No.46545 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan
For R1 : Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.S.Venkatesan for
M/s.Ajmal Associates
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to absorb the petitioner as Assistant Professor in the respondent University with effect from the date of appointment, together with all consequential and other attendant benefits, in the light of the orders passed in W.A.No.898 of 2021 etc., batch dated 01.04.2025.
2. Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
3. In similar matters, this Court considered an identical request in W.P.Nos.32478 of 2024 & etc., batch, dated 19.11.2025 and held as follows:-
“22. Aggrieved by the same, the Anna University preferred appeals in batch of writ appeals in W.A.Nos. 898 of 2021 & etc., batch. This Court dismissed the appeal by an order dated 01.04.2025. Further, it is also relevant to extract paragraph Nos.46 to 48 in the batch of W.As is as follows:Page 2 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/01/2026 05:43:38 pm ) W.P.No.46545 of 2025 “34. In paragraphs 46 to 48 learned Single Judge has justified the conclusion that parity of pay must be accorded in the following terms:-
46.The next issue that has to be taken into consideration is with regard to the pay that has to be made to the Petitioners by the Respondent University. Both the UGC Regulations as well as the AICTE Regulations makes it very clear that even in case of ad hoc or temporary service, the emoluments paid to such contract teachers should not be less than the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor. The Anna University gave scant regard to these Regulations and continued with the practice of consolidated pay to the Petitioners which was nowhere near the actual pay made to a regularly appointed Assistant Professor. It is again reiterated that the Petitioners even though were called as Teaching Fellows, were actually performing the duties of an Assistant Professor with all qualifications. Therefore, they should have been paid the emoluments on par with the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor.
47.It is also important to take note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Jagjit Singh and Others reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148. The relevant portions of the judgment are extracted hereunder:
42. All the judgments noticed in paras 7 to 24 herein above, pertain to employees engaged on regular basis, who were claiming higher wages, under the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. The claim raised by such employees was premised on the ground, that the duties and responsibilities rendered by them were against the same post for which a higher pay scale Page 3 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/01/2026 05:43:38 pm ) W.P.No.46545 of 2025 was being allowed in other government departments. Or alternatively, their duties and responsibilities were the same as of other posts with different designations, but they were placed in a lower scale. Having been painstakingly taken through the parameters laid down by this Court, wherein the principle of “equal pay for equal work” was invoked and considered, it would be just and appropriate to delineate the parameters laid down by this Court. In recording the said parameters, we have also adverted to some other judgments pertaining to temporary employees (also dealt with, in the instant judgment), wherein also, this Court had the occasion to express the legal position with reference to the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. Our consideration, has led us to the following deductions:
42.1. The “onus of proof” of parity in the duties and responsibilities of the subject post with the reference post under the principle of “equal pay for equal work” lies on the person who claims it. He who approaches the court has to establish that the subject post occupied by him requires him to discharge equal work of equal value, as the reference post (see Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology case [Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology v. Manoj K. Mohanty, (2003) 5 SCC 188 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 645] , UT Chandigarh, Admn. v. Manju Mathur [U.T. Chandigarh, Admn. v. Manju Mathur, (2011) 2 SCC 452 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 348] , SAIL case [SAIL v.
Dibyendu Bhattacharya, (2011) 11 SCC 122 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 192] and National Aluminium Co. Ltd. case [National Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Ananta Kishore Rout, (2014) 6 SCC 756 :
(2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 353] ).
42.2. The mere fact that the subject post occupied by the claimant is in a “different department” vis-à-vis the reference post does not have any bearing on the determination of a claim under the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. Persons discharging identical duties cannot be treated differently in the matter of their pay, merely because they belong to different departments of the Government (see Randhir Singh case [Randhir Page 4 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/01/2026 05:43:38 pm ) W.P.No.46545 of 2025 Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 119] and D.S. Nakara case [D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145] ).
42.3. The principle of “equal pay for equal work”, applies to cases of unequal scales of pay, based on no classification or irrational classification (see Randhir Singh case [Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 119] ). For equal pay, the employees concerned with whom equation is sought, should be performing work, which besides being functionally equal, should be of the same quality and sensitivity (see Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers case [Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers v. Union of India, (1988) 3 SCC 91 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 673] , Mewa Ram Kanojia case [Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, (1989) 2 SCC 235 :
1989 SCC (L&S) 329] , Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union case [Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 619 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 621] and S.C. Chandra case [S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand, (2007) 8 SCC 279 :
(2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 897 : 2 SCEC 943] ).
42.4. Persons holding the same rank/designation (in different departments), but having dissimilar powers, duties and responsibilities, can be placed in different scales of pay and cannot claim the benefit of the principle of “equal pay for equal work” (see Randhir Singh case [Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 119] , State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. [State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn., (2002) 6 SCC 72 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 822] and Hukum Chand Gupta case [Hukum Chand Gup ta v. ICAR, (2012) 12 SCC 666 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 493] ). Therefore, the principle would not be automatically invoked merely because the subject and reference posts have the same nomenclature.
42.5. In determining equality of functions and responsibilities under the principle of “equal pay for equal Page 5 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/01/2026 05:43:38 pm ) W.P.No.46545 of 2025 work”, it is necessary to keep in mind that the duties of the two posts should be of equal sensitivity, and also, qualitatively similar. Differentiation of pay scales for posts with difference in degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality, would fall within the realm of valid classification, and therefore, pay differentiation would be legitimate and permissible (see Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers case [Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers v. Union of India, (1988) 3 SCC 91 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 673] and SBI case [SBI v. M.R. Ganesh Babu, (2002) 4 SCC 556 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 568] ). The nature of work of the subject post should be the same and not less onerous than the reference post. Even the volume of work should be the same. And so also, the level of responsibility. If these parameters are not met, parity cannot be claimed under the principle of “equal pay for equal work” (see State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia [State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, (1989) 1 SCC 121 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 71] and Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union case [Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 619 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 621] ).
42.6. For placement in a regular pay scale, the claimant has to be a regular appointee. The claimant should have been selected on the basis of a regular process of recruitment. An employee appointed on a temporary basis cannot claim to be placed in the regular pay scale (see Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology case [Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology v. Manoj K. Mohanty, (2003) 5 SCC 188 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 645] ).
42.7. Persons performing the same or similar functions, duties and responsibilities, can also be placed in different pay scales. Such as — “selection grade”, in the same post. But this difference must emerge out of a legitimate foundation, such as — merit, or seniority, or some other relevant criteria (see State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia [State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, (1989) 1 SCC 121 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 71] ).
Page 6 of 14https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/01/2026 05:43:38 pm ) W.P.No.46545 of 2025 42.8. If the qualifications for recruitment to the subject post vis-à-vis the reference post are different, it may be difficult to conclude that the duties and responsibilities of the posts are qualitatively similar or comparable (see Mewa Ram Kanojia case [Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, (1989) 2 SCC 235 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 329] and State of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy [State of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy, (2004) 1 SCC 347 :
2004 SCC (L&S) 225] ). In such a case the principle of “equal pay for equal work” cannot be invoked.
42.9. The reference post with which parity is claimed under the principle of “equal pay for equal work” has to be at the same hierarchy in the service as the subject post. Pay scales of posts may be different, if the hierarchy of the posts in question, and their channels of promo tion, are different. Even if the duties and responsibilities are same, parity would not be permissible, as against a superior post, such as a promotional post (see Union of India v. Pradip Kumar Dey [Union of India v. Pradip Kumar Dey, (2000) 8 SCC 580 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 56] and Hukum Chand Gupta case [Hukum Chand Gupta v. ICAR, (2012) 12 SCC 666 :
(2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 493] ).
42.10. A comparison between the subject post and the reference post under the principle of “equal pay for equal work” cannot be made where the subject post and the reference post are in different establishments, having a different management. Or even, where the establishments are in different geographical locations, though owned by the same master (see Harbans Lal case [Harbans Lal v. State of H.P., (1989) 4 SCC 459 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 71] ). Persons engaged differently, and being paid out of different funds, would not be entitled to pay parity (see Official Liquidator v. Dayanand [Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, (2008) 10 SCC 1 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 943] ).
42.11. Different pay scales, in certain eventualities, would be permissible even for posts clubbed together at the same hierarchy in the cadre. As for instance, if the duties and responsibilities of one of the posts are more onerous, or are Page 7 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/01/2026 05:43:38 pm ) W.P.No.46545 of 2025 exposed to higher nature of operational work/risk, the principle of “equal pay for equal work” would not be applicable. And also when the reference post includes the responsibility to take crucial decisions, and that is not so for the subject post (see SBI case [SBI v. M.R. Ganesh Babu, (2002) 4 SCC 556 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 568] ).
42.12. The priority given to different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the Government can also be a relevant factor for placing different posts under different pay scales. Herein also, the principle of “equal pay for equal work” would not be applicable (see State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. [State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn., (2002) 6 SCC 72 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 822] ).
42.13. The parity in pay, under the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, cannot be claimed merely on the ground that at an earlier point of time the subject post and the reference post, were placed in the same pay scale. The principle of “equal pay for equal work” is applicable only when it is shown, that the incumbents of the subject post and the reference post, discharge similar duties and responsibilities (see State of W.B. v. Minimum Wages Inspectors Assn. [State of W.B. v. W.B. Minimum Wages Inspectors Assn., (2010) 5 SCC 225 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 1]) 42.14. For parity in pay scales under the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, equation in the nature of duties is of paramount importance. If the principal nature of duties of one post is teaching, whereas that of the other is non-teaching, the principle would not be applicable. If the dominant nature of duties of one post is of control and management, whereas the subject post has no such duties, the principle would not be applicable. Likewise, if the central nature of duties of one post is of quality control, whereas the subject post has minimal duties of quality control, the principle would not be applicable (see U.T. Chandigarh, Admn. v. Manju Mathur [U.T. Chandigarh, Admn. v. Manju Mathur, (2011) 2 SCC 452 : (2011) 1 SCC Page 8 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/01/2026 05:43:38 pm ) W.P.No.46545 of 2025 (L&S) 348] ).
42.15. There can be a valid classification in the matter of pay scales between employees even holding posts with the same nomenclature i.e. between those discharging duties at the headquarters, and others working at the institutional/sub-office level (see Hukum Chand Gupta case [Hukum Chand Gupta v. ICAR, (2012) 12 SCC 666 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 493] ), when the duties are qualitatively dissimilar.
42.16. The principle of “equal pay for equal work” would not be applicable, where a differential higher pay scale is extended to persons discharging the same duties and holding the same designation, with the objective of ameliorating stagnation, or on account of lack of promotional avenues (see Hukum Chand Gupta case [Hukum Chand Gupta v. ICAR, (2012) 12 SCC 666 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 493] ).
42.17. Where there is no comparison between one set of employees of one organisation, and another set of employees of a different organisation, there can be no question of equation of pay scales under the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, even if two organisations have a common employer. Likewise, if the management and control of two organisations is with different entities which are independent of one another, the principle of “equal pay for equal work” would not apply (see S.C. Chandra case [S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand, (2007) 8 SCC 279 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 897 : 2 SCEC 943] and National Aluminium Co. Ltd. case [National Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Ananta Kishore Rout, (2014) 6 SCC 756 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 353] ).
48.It is clear from the above judgment that the Petitioners are entitled for the same pay as stipulated in the Regulations for performance of their duty on par with the regularly appointed Assistant Professors.” Page 9 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/01/2026 05:43:38 pm ) W.P.No.46545 of 2025
23. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners are also entitled for the same pay as stipulated in the regulation for performance of their duties on par with regularly appointed Assistant Professors.
24. In fact the orders passed by the Division Bench were also confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP.Nos.17339 to 17342 of 2025 by an order dated 25.07.2025. The Hon’ble Supreme Court with some modification disposed the SLPs. The modification order is as follows:
“6. After hearing learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of both the sides, it is seen from the record that out of all the writ petitions filed praying for regularisation, five Teaching Fellows, namely, T.R.Kannan, Mr.N.Subash, Mr.E.Raja Sherin, Mr.A.Krishna Prakash and Ms.N.Bathlin Nelmin were granted regularisation. Their case for regularisation be considered and appropriate orders as directed be passed within eight weeks from today. It is made clear that the benefit of regularisation shall accrue from the date of the order of the Single Judge, i.e., 09.11.2020, though the consequential benefits shall follow notionally.
7. So far as the direction for grant of monthly gross salary of a regular Assistant Professor to the Teaching Fellows is concerned, with respect to the respondents, it will suffice to observe that the said benefit would be applicable in terms of the directions as issued by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 09.11.2020 from the said date. The arrears of difference in salary, if any, be paid to them within four months.Page 10 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/01/2026 05:43:38 pm ) W.P.No.46545 of 2025
8. With the aforesaid modification and clarification, all the appeals stand disposed of pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
25. The issue in these writ petitions and the issues dealt with by this Court are one and the same, therefore, the petitioners are also entitled for the same directions.
26. In view of the above, the Registrar, Anna University is directed to engage the petitioners as Assistant Professors and treat the petitioners as temporary Assistant Professors with effect from the date on which, their services expired in their respective posts until the regular recruitment is completed and vacant posts are filled up.
27. At the time of filling up all the respective posts on a regular basis, the directions issued in the batch of writ petitions in the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.24819 of 2018 in paragraph No.49 shall be followed scrupulously. The respondents are directed to pay monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professors to the petitioners from the date of their service as Assistant Professors.
28. With these directions, all the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
4.The case of the present petitioner stands on the very same footing as that of the petitioners in the above batch of writ petitions. Hence, the petitioner is also entitled to similar relief.
Page 11 of 14https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/01/2026 05:43:38 pm ) W.P.No.46545 of 2025
5. In view of the above, the Registrar, Anna University is directed to engage the petitioner as an Assistant Professor and to treat the petitioner as a temporary Assistant Professor with effect from the date on which his service in the said post expired and to continue him in service until the regular recruitment process is completed and the vacant posts are filled up.
6. At the time of filling up the respective posts on a regular basis, the directions issued in the batch of writ petitions in the order passed in W.P. (MD).No.24819 of 2018 in paragraph No.49 shall be followed scrupulously.
The respondents are directed to pay monthly gross salary payable to a regularly appointed Assistant Professor to the petitioner from the date of his service as Assistant Professor.
7. With these directions, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs.
27.11.2025 Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No Lpp Page 12 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/01/2026 05:43:38 pm ) W.P.No.46545 of 2025 To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Tamilnadu, Higher Education Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
2.The Registrar Ann University, Guindy, Chennai 600 025
3.The Dean University College of Engineering Ariyalur, (Constituent College Of Anna Univeristy, Chennai) Ariyalur, Ariyalur District.
Page 13 of 14https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/01/2026 05:43:38 pm ) W.P.No.46545 of 2025 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, Lpp W.P.No.46545 of 2025 27.11.2025 Page 14 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/01/2026 05:43:38 pm )