The Calcutta High Court has affirmed that teachers employed in school units of a central university, who hold the requisite qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor, are entitled to the same pay structure and benefits as their counterparts in the university proper. This judgment clarifies that administrative reclassification aimed at cost containment cannot override established service conditions when duties and responsibilities remain identical.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from the denial of Academic Grade Pay of Rs. 6,000 and three non-compounded increments for acquisition of a Ph.D degree to Sri Sandeep Kumar Bhakat, a teacher employed in Siksha Sastra, a school unit of Visva-Bharati University. Despite holding a Ph.D from the same university and performing duties identical to Assistant Professors in the university proper, Bhakat was placed under the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangha (KVS) pay scale from 1st January 2006, following a directive from the Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD) and the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Key Facts
- Sandeep Kumar Bhakat obtained B.Sc (Honours) in Mathematics in 1984, M.Sc in 1986, and Ph.D in 1996 from Visva-Bharati University
- Appointed as Assistant Lecturer in Mathematics in Siksha Sastra on 15.06.1989
- Promoted to the scale of Rs. 2,000-3,500 after eight years of continuous service
- Upgraded to Rs. 2,200-4,000 scale on 15.09.1997 under 4th Central Pay Commission recommendations
- Placed in Rs. 8,000-13,500 scale under 5th Central Pay Commission
- From 01.01.2006, he was placed in Pay Band-3 (Rs. 15,600-39,100) without Academic Grade Pay of Rs. 6,000, contrary to the pay structure for Assistant Professors in the university
- He was asked to sign an undertaking accepting KVS pay scales as a condition for implementation of 6th CPC
- He refused the undertaking, protesting against being treated as a school teacher rather than a university teacher
- MHRD memo dated 31.12.2008 restricted UGC pay scales to only three designated scales in universities and colleges, excluding school teachers of Central Universities
- UGC memo dated 28.03.2009 warned of withdrawal of Rs. 210.00 lakhs grant if KVS norms were not followed
- Executive Council of Visva-Bharati adopted resolution on 24.04.2013 acknowledging the conflict between MHRD norms and university service rules
- Bhakat submitted representations on 15.01.2016 and 10.03.2016 seeking parity in pay and benefits, which were rejected
- He retired on superannuation on 31.03.2015
Procedural History
- 15.06.1989: Appointment as Assistant Lecturer in Siksha Sastra
- 15.09.1997: Promotion to Rs. 2,200-4,000 scale
- 01.01.2006: Implementation of 6th CPC; placement in Pay Band-3 without Academic Grade Pay
- 31.12.2008: MHRD circular issued restricting UGC pay scales to university teachers only
- 28.03.2009: UGC warning of grant withdrawal if KVS norms not followed
- 24.04.2013: Executive Council resolution acknowledging conflict
- 15.01.2016 & 10.03.2016: Representations made by Bhakat for pay parity
- 20.05.2015: Writ Petition No. 5050(W) of 2015 filed before Single Judge
- 11.01.2019: Single Judge directed pay parity with Assistant Professors, including all benefits revised from time to time
- 20.03.2020: Appeal filed as MAT 346 of 2020
- 02.04.2026: Final hearing concluded
- 17.04.2026: Judgment delivered
The Parties' Positions
Appellant (Visva-Bharati University): Argued that Bhakat was a school teacher under Siksha Sastra, not a university teacher, and therefore bound by MHRD and UGC directives excluding school teachers from UGC pay scales. Cited Roshan Lal v. Union of India to argue his service was contractual and not governed by statutory service rules.
Respondent (Sandeep Kumar Bhakat): Contended that his duties, responsibilities, and qualifications were identical to Assistant Professors in the university. Cited Section 3(c) of the Visva-Bharati Act, 1951, which defines ‘Adhyapaka’ to include all persons imparting instruction, regardless of whether in school or university unit. Argued that the denial of Academic Grade Pay and Ph.D increments was arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
Relief Sought
Bhakat sought:
- Fixation of pay as Assistant Professor with Academic Grade Pay of Rs. 6,000 from 01.01.2006
- Grant of three non-compounded increments for Ph.D from 01.01.2006
- Payment of all arrears with interest at market rate
- Restoration of benefits enjoyed prior to implementation of KVS scales
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a teacher employed in a school unit of a central university, who holds the same qualifications and performs identical duties as an Assistant Professor in the university proper, is entitled to the same Academic Grade Pay and pay benefits under the UGC framework, despite administrative classification under KVS norms.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The University contended that the MHRD memo dated 31.12.2008 and UGC directive dated 28.03.2009 were binding on it as a Central University. It argued that the KVS pay structure was mandatory for school teachers, and that Bhakat’s service in Siksha Sastra was distinct from university teaching. Relied on Roshan Lal v. Union of India to assert that his employment was contractual and not governed by statutory service rules. Argued that the Single Judge erred in substituting administrative policy with judicial discretion.
For the Respondent
Bhakat argued that Section 3(c) of the Visva-Bharati Act, 1951 defines ‘Adhyapaka’ inclusively, encompassing all instructors regardless of unit. He emphasized that his duties, academic responsibilities, and qualifications were indistinguishable from those of Assistant Professors in the university. He contended that the denial of Academic Grade Pay and Ph.D increments was discriminatory and violated the principle of equal pay for equal work. He asserted that the benefits he enjoyed until 31.12.2005 were vested rights that could not be withdrawn arbitrarily.
The Court's Analysis
The Court rejected the University’s attempt to create an artificial distinction between teachers in Siksha Sastra and those in the university proper. It held that the nature of work, level of responsibility, and academic qualifications were identical, and therefore, the differential treatment lacked a reasonable basis. The Court emphasized that the term ‘Adhyapaka’ under Section 3(c) of the Visva-Bharati Act, 1951 is broad and inclusive, and cannot be narrowed by administrative fiat.
"The differentiation of pay scales for posts having no difference in degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality would not fall within the realm of valid classification. The nature of work of the subject post is the same and not less onerous than the reference post."
The Court distinguished Roshan Lal v. Union of India, noting that while the case dealt with government servants, the principle that service conditions cannot be altered to the disadvantage of an incumbent without justification applies equally here. The Court observed that Bhakat had been granted parity in pay and benefits until 31.12.2005, and that this constituted a vested right.
The Court further held that the threat of grant withdrawal by UGC could not override the statutory definition of ‘Adhyapaka’ or the constitutional guarantee of equality. It affirmed that judicial review is warranted when administrative action results in arbitrary denial of rights that have been consistently recognized over time.
"The University though not desirous to take a hard look at the dichotomy created by the novel nomenclature of the posts adopted in the University Act and Statutes, was compelled to alter the status and benefits and to segregate the classes on threat of lapse of UGC grant."
The Court concluded that the Single Judge’s order was not an error of law but a reasonable exercise of discretion to prevent injustice, and that courts must allow "free play in the joints" when discretionary powers are conferred to prevent manifest inequity.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The Court upheld the Single Judge’s order dated 11.01.2019, directing that Sandeep Kumar Bhakat shall be eligible to receive and maintain his pay as received prior to the introduction of KVS scales, along with all benefits revised from time to time. No costs were awarded. The judgment affirmed the entitlement to Academic Grade Pay of Rs. 6,000 and three non-compounded increments for Ph.D from 01.01.2006, with arrears to be computed and paid in accordance with the revised pay structure.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Pay Parity Cannot Be Denied on Administrative Classification Alone
- Practitioners must argue that where duties, qualifications, and responsibilities are identical, administrative labels (e.g., "school teacher" vs. "university teacher") cannot justify pay disparity
- Section 3(c) of the Visva-Bharati Act sets a precedent for inclusive definitions of teaching roles in integrated universities
- Any attempt to withdraw previously granted benefits based on external funding conditions (e.g., UGC grants) must be scrutinized for arbitrariness under Article 14
Vested Rights in Service Conditions Are Legally Protected
- Benefits consistently granted over time, even if not codified in rules, may constitute vested rights that cannot be unilaterally withdrawn
- The principle from Roshan Lal that service conditions cannot be altered to the disadvantage of an incumbent applies even in contractual appointments where long-standing practice exists
- Representation and consistent recognition of entitlements over a decade (1989 - 2005) strengthens the claim to vested rights
Judicial Review Extends to Funding-Driven Administrative Decisions
- Courts will intervene when funding pressures lead to discriminatory application of pay structures
- The threat of financial penalty from UGC or MHRD does not override statutory definitions or constitutional equality
- Writ jurisdiction is available to correct manifest injustice arising from administrative reclassification, even in the absence of a direct challenge to the funding policy
