1. The Telangana State Council of Higher Education v. 1. Dr. B.N.V. Satyanarayana

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI P.V.RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following: JUDGMENT fiIE HOII'BLE THE CHIEF JI'STICE SRI APARESH KT'MAR SINGH AIVD THE HOI{'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHITIDDIN WRIT APPEAL No.1O19 of 2025 JUDGMENT: This Writ Appeal assails the order dated 21.04'2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.32364 of 2017, whereby the Writ Petition filed by respondent No.1 herein (writ petitioner) was allowed, directing the appellants herein to grant the writ petitioner the pay scale of an Associate Professor under the UGC Pay Scales of 2006 with subsequent revision along with arrears.

2. Heard sri A.P.Suresh, learned counsel for the appellants and sri P.v.Ramana, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the record. Factual Matrix (in brief)

3. The factual background, necessary for the adjudication of this appeal, is as follows: i) Respondent No.1 herein/writ petitioner (hereafter "the petitioner") applied for the post of Director in response to an advertisement in the Hindu Daily dated 22.08.2006 (Ex.P-l). However, he was appointed aS Coordinator, 21st Century Gurukulams under the Consortium of Institutions of Higher \ \ \ \\ 2 Learning (hereafter "CIHU'), uide proceedings dated 2o.o1 .2oor. His appoinr-ment was on a consolidated salan,, which is equivalent to the starting pay of a Lecturer in thc IJGC 1996 scales o[ 1>,ly (Ex.P-2). The relevant portion o[ thc order of appointment dated 20.OL.2OOZ is extracted as under: In pursuance of orders under reference cited., Srz B.N.V. satganaragana, vice-Principat Anniebesant pG cortege, Klvtnunam is appointe.d as Co-ordinator, 2lst Century Gurukulat<ts, ott a consolidaf.ed salary which is equiualent to the startirLg pag of a lecturer ir,, the UGC 1996 scales of paa (Dp merged. Rs.gor.r0- 16000). Nqture of works, period of appointment etc., witt be d.ecicled by the. Gouenin<y Council of CIHL The appointment shall come into force from the d.ate of rt:porting to the dutg. ii) The Governing council of GIHL, as.per the mLnutes of the meeting o. 08.O3.2OO7 (Ex.p-3), ratified the follou,i,g:

10. Ratifications: The follotuing lssues haue been ratified. bg the members oJ'l\ouerning council o.,F CIHL: a A consolidate amount of Rs.23,oo0 (Twentg three thousands) will be paid as monthly salary to the Directors apari Jiom free accomnutdation and boarding. (T?rc aboue salary is fu-t.rt to keep paritg ruitlt Associate Professor in the UGC-1996 scales of pay (D A mergled) HRA is not included since accommod.ation is proutded.). b. A consolidated amount o/Rs.1O,O0O/-, Rs.gO\1/_ arul Rs.4OO\/- uill be paid to Associate IT Mentor, Assisfanf IT Mentor anci reaching IT Mentor respectiuelg. c. Mr BNV satganaraaana is appointed. as coordinator of 21 century Gurukulant- He wilt be paid. salary on par uith the Dtrectors of Gurukulqnt. d. Mr Praueen, principal Mentor of IIIT, ha,s been appointed as Director academic for 21" century Gurukuram to ad.uice:'nd assist the clwirman of consortium of Institutions of Higher Leaning in d.ay to dag Junctioning of the garukulam. He will continue to clraw salary and other perks fromthe parent irrctitution (IIIT) c. An alloutance of Rs.SO1/_ taitt be paid. to ,Resident lllentors, utho perfonn duties on pubtic Horid.ags, and. sundags at Grtrukurams Centre. aJ As seen from the above, the said meeting held on O8.03.2OO7 ratified that the petitioner would be paid a salary on par with the Directors of the Gurukulams, which was fixed at Rs.23,0OO/- (later noted that a sum of Rs. 25,00O/- was paid since January, 2OO7 in the meeting on 29 O2-2Ol2l, a sllm intended to be in parity with the pay of an Associate Professor under UGC 1996 scales. [t was also stated that Directors were provided free accommodation and boarding in lieu of HRA. iii) Subsequently, the Governing Council as per the minutes of its meeting on 29.O2.2OL2 ratified the following:

11. The request of Dr. B.N.v. satganarayana, co-ordirrcttor, 214 CG to enhance his monthlg salary as per UGC-RSP 2006 was put to fj:f.","" by the chairman. The members noted thnt Dr. B.N.V. Satganaragana is being paid a consolidated amount of Rs25,OO0/- p.m. for the last fiue years since Jan 2OO7. It wa.s noted that t\w amount paid to him tuas in accordance with tte Ratification item in the Goueming council meeting of GIHL held on 08-03-2007 and the Note orders of tlrc chairunan dt. 13-03-2007. It uas ntentioned therein that his salary .u_tas fixed keeping in uieut of the UGC-1996 Associate Professor's scale of pag. It is further resolued tlwt tlrc actual amount to be paid to him (fixed p.m.) mag be decided bg the Chainnan taking the UGC-2006 Associate Professor's scale of pag as base, howeuer, without considering AGP and other allotuances. As seen from the above, it was resolved in the said meeting dated 29.02.2012 to increase the consolidated salary of the petitioner, with effect from OL.O3.2OL2, with the actqal amount to be decided by the Chairman "taking the UGC-2OO6 Associate Professor's scale of pay as base, however, without \ \ \ 4 corlsidering the Academic Grade pay (AGp) ;and other allowances". Pursuant to the said resolution dated 2t).o2.2012, the chairmzLn fixed the consolidated salary of the petitioner at Rs. 37,0OAt' - per rnonth uide proceedings datecl 17.OS.,2OL2 (Ex.P-5). irr) 'rl're petitioner made numerous representations claiming that since he was not provided free accomnlodation, he u,as entitlecl to the full monetary equivalent and he sought full pay parity rvith an Associate Professor, including HRA and other allowances. v) The clHL became defunct around the yeatr 2orr, but thc petitioner continued to work, and his services were utilized by the 1'elangana State council of Higher Education (TSCHE) for other duties, such as In-charge of the Right to Information (RTI) Cell, till hi:; 'superannuation'on 30.11 .2olg. vi) 'l'he learned Single Judge while allowing the writ Petition, held that the petitioner was entitled to the full pay scale of eur Associate professor under UGC 2006 and its 2016 revision c)n the ground that the resolutions of the clHL Governing council were binding and that the act of relieving the petitionel- on'superannuation' strengthened the petitioner,s case for br:ing treated equally on par with a regura.employee. >/ .tA 5

4. The learned counsel for the appellants raised the following contentions:

4.L That the petitioner was engaged on a purely contractual and temporary basis of work. His initial and subsequent appointments were agains! no sanctioned post. The mere use of the phrase "equivalent to a UGC scale" was only for the purpose of determining a consolidated remuneration and did not confer upon the petitioner the status, duties, or rights of a Government servant or a regular UGC-scale employee.

4.2 tn the year 2011, the very organization-ClHl, for which the petitioner was appointed, became defunct and the post of Co-ordinator, stood abolished. His subsequent employment by TSCHE was merely short term, contractual arrangement without any creation of a regular post or financial liability on TSCHE.

4.3. The learned Single Judge has misapplied the equal pay for equal work principte as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Storte of Rmiab a- Jagiit Singhl' The petitioner's role as a co-ordinator and later as ln-charge of the RTI Cell of TSCHE was wholly distinct in nature, responsibiliqr, and duties from that of an Associate ' 1zon1l scc 148 \ '\ \ \ 6 Professor in a University. Thus, the said doctrine of equal palr for equal work would apply only where the duties and responsibilities are similar, which is not the case here.

5. The learncd counsel for the appellants, further contended that the learned Singte Judge adopted an incorrect interpretation of resolution(s) of the GIHL Governing council, particulal|.1r, the Resolution dated 29.o2.2o12, which explicitly stated that the UGC-2006 scale was to be taken as a "base" without considering AGP and other allowances. The chairman implemente:d the same by lixing a consolidatecl amount of Rs.37,000/-. The learned Single Judge's direction to grant the full scale, including AGP and allowances together with revisions, runs contrary to the explicit terms of the very resolution relied upon.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants, referring to the relieving k:tter dated 30.11 .2oLB issued to the petitioner upon his attaining 58 years of age, wherein he was requested to hand over complete charge of his post with effect from the afternoon of the same day, contended that the learned Single Judge has erroneously inferred that mere use of the expression 'superannuation' in the reliving letter would imply that the petitioner rvas a regular employee; and the act of relieving the petitioner from service upon his attaining the age of sg years, ,/ ,r' ,/ 7 has to be construed as an admission that the petitioner was a regular employee. According to the learned counsel for appellants, the learned Single Judge failed to notice that it was merely an administrative measure to terminate the petitioner's long-standing contractual engagement.

7. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner relied on the resolutions passed by the Governing council, the highest body of the CIHL, which promised pay parity of the coordinators with Directors, who in turn were given pay parity with Associate Professors in the UGC Scales. The learned counsel for petitioner contended that the appellants, having availed the benelit of the writ petitioner's services for over a decade, cannot resile from this promise of pay parity with Associate Professors in UGC Scales. It was contended that while the appointment was termed "contractual", the nature of the petitioner's longstanding continuous service and the fact that the petitioner was even assigned additional responsibilities of the RTI Cell of TSCHE demonstrate that he was treated as a permanent employee; and the act of relieving him on attaining the age of superannuation confirms the writ petitioner's de facto status as a regular employee. It is also contended that the Resolution dated o8.03.2oo7 entitled the petitioner to pay on par with an Associate Professor in the UGC scales' That' the '- i \ \ 8 subsequent resolution dated 29.02.2012 did not negate this entitlement, but has merely made as a step towards its implementertion. Denying the petitioner HRA and DA while not providing; ft'ee accommodation, which was provided to the Directors, \vas con[endecl to be discriminatory..

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the responsibilities o[ coordinating multiple Gurukulanrs were at v least as onc)rous as those of an Associate professor, if not more. Therefore, the principle of equal pay for equal work was rightly invoked b1,the learned Single Judge.

9. Per contre", the learned counsel for the respondents ) defended the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, contending that it does not suffer from any infirmity either in law or on facts. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly'appreciated the material on record and applied the settled legal principles, and therefore, the order of learned single.Judge warrants no interference in this appezrl.

10. we have taken note of the respective co-ntentions urged. Analvsiseg{ Seaqggqi 11. After a thorough consideration of the pleadings, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and the 9 submissions advanced, we lind substantial force in the contentions raised by the appellants.

1. The Fundamental Distinction: Contractual Consolidated Pav vs. Regular Scale: It is to be noted that the foundational document is the appointment order dated 20..01 .2OO7, which unambiguously provides for a "consolidated salary." In our view, the use of the phrase "equivalent to the starting pay of a lecturer", was merely a method to quantify this consolidated amount. It cannot be construed to have incorporated the entire UGC scheme of pay, increments, allowances, and permanency into the petitioner'S contract. It is settled law that a person appointed on a contractual basis against no sanctioned post, cannot claim the regular pay scale as a matter of right. The terms of his appointment are governed by his contract. 2 The Correct Construction of the Council Resolutions: The salutary principle that a document must be read in its entirety to ascertain the true intent applies here. The resolution dated O8.O3.20O7 when read in its entirety fixed a specific consolidated amount for the Directors (and by extension to the petitioner) "to keep parity with Associate Professor." crucially, it also noted that 'HRA is not included since accommodation is provided", which demonstrates that the Council was f,rxing a comprehensive, all-inclusive package, not \ \ \ l0 adopting the entire UGC pay structure. The subsequent resolution dated 29.o2.2o12 is even more specific as it authorizes the Chairman to fix the pay "takins the UGC-2006 r's conside rine AGP and other ces" (Emphasis supplied). Further, thc learned Single Judge's direction to grant the full pay scale, including Academic Grade pay (AGp) and allowances together with revisions, directly contravenes the content and the intent of tfre resolution. The settled position is l.hat the writ court cannot rewrite the contract betr.r,een the parties.

3. Misa cation of "Eoual for Eoua Work" nri : The learned single Judge's reliance on the case of Jagiit sizgh,s case (supra) is misplaced. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the duties and responsibilities of a co-ordinator for Gurukulams (an administrative and coordination role) were similar or identical to the core academic, teaching, and research responsibilities of an Associate professor in a university. The nature of the work was "entirely distinct," as rightly argued by the appellants. It is to be noted that the principle of equal pay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine; it is contingent upon a clear showing of functionar parity, which is ei.bsent in the present cztse ,i l: t: l, I I I I l I I I I I I , , i I I I I ' u

4. The Fallacv of the "Su uation" argument: It will not be out of the context to note that the petitioner was engaged by CIHL, (a society) and the act of TSCHE in relieving the petitioner upon attaining the age of 58 years was a logical step to bring closure of his long-standing engagement. Further, the relieving letter dated 30.11 .2Ot8 was an administrative convenience, and does not constitute a legal recognition of the petitioner's status as a Government servant, who was entitled to superannuation benelits und.er the Fundamental Rules. Thus, it would be wholly incorrect to draw a legal inference of regularization from this administrative act of the petitioner.

5. The leeal status q[ CIHL and TSCHE: It is pertinent to note that clHL was a distinct registered societ5r. while TSCHE exercised supervisory control, the Petitioner's employer was clHL. Upon CIHL becoming d.efunct, the Petitioner's contractual engagement lost its primary foundation' The petitioner's subsequent work for TSCHE did not constitute a fresh appointment or absorption' but was a purely informal arrangement, as correctly contended by the appellants' In this regard, the TSCHE being a supervisory body cannot be burdenedwiththefinancialliabilityofpayingaUGCscalefora postthatneverexistedwithinitssanctionedestablishment. \\ ) \, \ I t2 Conclusion: L2. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the learned single Judge suffers from a fundamental crror in faiiing to zrppreciate the contractual nature of the petitioner's appolntmt_'nt and the specific, limited terms of the Governing council's resolutions. The direction to grant the petitioner the full UGC p:ry scale of an Associate Professor together with revision, contrary to the explicit stipulation in the resolutiorr of the Governing council of clHL dated 20.or.2oo7, 08.o3.2007 and 29.o2.2912, is unsustainable in law.

13. Accordingly, the writ Appeal is aflowed and the impugned order dated 2l-o4-2o25 passed by the learned Single Judge in w.P.No.3'2364 of 2o17 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions;, if any, shall I. stand closed //TRUE COPYII SD/.B.SAWAVATHI JOINT REGISTRAR Ir \i t l': SECTTON OFFICER The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Secretariat, Hyderaba<i. v '-' -yy! one CC to SRtA.P.SURESH RAM, ( SC FOR TGCHE ). tOpUCl One CC to SRt p.V.RAMANA, Two CD Copies. Advocate. [OpUC] nt, Telangana I 1 To, 1 2 3

4. BSK ! I I i I .. i I l I 1 I I t t 1 I HIGH COURT DATED ;11t1112025 JUDGMENl WA.No.1019 of 2025 'i t-l'J:- .$ 1.t ),( y( o U 01 trC 20fr 5 .+ i-./1, rr', ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS lt)r