The Supreme Court has made it clear that universities cannot sidestep statutory regulations governing the salaries of their teaching staff, observing that educational institutions have a responsibility to protect the rights of teachers entrusted with educating large numbers of students.
Granting relief to an Associate Professor of Uttarakhand Sanskrit University, Haridwar, the Court held that the University could not depart from the pay scales prescribed under the guidelines of the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the University Grants Commission (UGC).
A Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi said universities must remain bound by the regulations and guidelines applicable to their teaching staff.
The dispute arose after the Associate Professor was appointed following an advertisement that specified the pay band for the post as ₹37,400–67,000 along with an Annual Grade Pay (AGP) of ₹9,000.
However, the appointment letter issued after his selection reflected a substantially different pay scale of ₹15,600–39,100 with a Grade Pay of ₹8,000.
The University later sought to attribute the discrepancy to a typographical error.
The professor challenged the denial of the higher pay scale through representations and legal proceedings. Although he was eventually granted the revised pay scale in line with UGC norms, the benefit was made effective only from December 2018 rather than from the date of his appointment in September 2016.
A subsequent challenge before the High Court did not succeed, with the High Court accepting the University’s stand that an employee could not claim a benefit arising from what was described as a typographical mistake in the advertisement.
The Supreme Court, however, took a different view.
Setting aside the High Court’s decision, the Bench noted that the revised pay scale had already been introduced under the applicable government and UGC framework following recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission.
The Court found that the material on record clearly established that the post of Associate Professor carried the revised pay band of ₹37,400–67,000 with an AGP of ₹9,000 even before the professor’s appointment.
It also pointed out that the advertisement itself expressly mentioned that the revised pay scale would apply to the post.
In these circumstances, the Court said the University could not deny the benefit by later describing the pay scale mentioned in the advertisement as an error.
The Bench further observed that even if the discrepancy were assumed to be a genuine typographical mistake, the governing regulations would still prevail.
The Supreme Court noted that where there is any inconsistency between an advertisement and the applicable statutory regulations, the regulations must take precedence.
Holding that the Associate Professor was entitled to the revised pay scale from the very beginning of his service, the Court directed the University to extend the benefit from September 15, 2016, the date of his appointment.
Since the revised scale had already been granted from December 27, 2018, the University has been directed to calculate and release the arrears arising from the difference in salary.
The arrears are to be paid within six weeks.
The ruling reinforces a significant principle for educational institutions: once statutory pay regulations govern a teaching post, universities cannot withhold the prescribed benefits by relying on administrative inconsistencies or errors in appointment-related documents.