The Supreme Court recently held that universities could not depart from the statutory guidelines and regulations governing the pay scale of their teaching staff.

“University ought to honour its teachers and uphold their rights as they undertake to impart knowledge to vast number of students and they are estopped from departing from the regulations and guidelines. Hence, University cannot be permitted to deviate from the MHRD guidelines and UGC regulations.”, the Court said.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M Pancholi heard the case where the Appellant, posted as an Associate Professor at Uttarakhand Sanskrit University, Haridwar was denied the pay band of an Associate Professor mentioned in the advertisement post, as per MHRD & UGC norms, on the ground of a typographical error.

In the advertisement, the pay band of Associate Professors was squarely mentioned as Rs.37400-67000 with Annual Grade Pay (AGP) of Rs. 9000, however, upon selection of the Appellant, an appointment letter issued to him prescribed the pay scale as Rs. 15,600–39,100, with a Grade Pay of Rs. 8,000, contrary to the pay scale specified in the advertisement as well as in the guidelines issued by the Education Ministry.

After making representations at various levels including the High Court, the Appellant was granted the benefit of the pay band as per the UGC norms not from the date of his appointment in 2016, but from a later date in 2018, after the State government clarified that the candidates selected to the post of the Associate Professor would be entitled to receive a pay band as per the MHRD & UGC norms i.e., Rs.37400-67000 with AGP of Rs. 9000.

Aggrieved by the University's direction to grant him the benefit of the original pay band from a later date, the Appellant once again approached the High Court, which in turn dismissed his writ petition, holding that the employee cannot be benefited by a typographical error in the advertisement. Against this judgment, he moved the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned judgment, the Court observed that the University cannot bypass the revised pay scale granted to the Associate Professor in terms of the MHRD 2008's letter to the University Grants Commission (UGC) appraising them of the revision in pay scale of teachers and equivalent cadres in the Universities and colleges in view of the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission.

Further, the Court noted that when the advertisement itself carried the pay scale of Rs. 37,400–67,000 with an AGP of Rs. 9,000, then there was no reason for the University to treat it as otherwise on the ground of a typographical error.

“There is clinching evidence on record to show that the post of Associate Professor carried the pay scale of Rs. 37,400–67,000 with an AGP of Rs. 9,000 even before the appointment of the Appellant to the said post. The Advertisement also, in clear terms, noted that the revised pay scale shall be applicable to the post of Associate Professor. Thus, by denying the revised pay to the Appellant and by contending that it was an error in the advertisement, the Respondent No. 7-University has unnecessarily dragged the Appellant into this litigation causing hardship.”, the Court observed.

“…the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained as the Appellant was always entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs. 37,400–67,000 with an AGP of Rs. 9,000 from the date of his appointment. Arguendo, even if it is said to be a genuine typographical error, the guidelines are clear to the effect that revised pay scale shall be applicable and the judgments of this Court have clarified that in case of ambiguity between the advertisement and the regulations, the latter shall prevail.”, the Court added.

Court directed the university to pay arrears of revised pay scale from the date of appointment

“The Appellant would be entitled to revised pay scale of Rs. 37,400–67,000 with an AGP of Rs. 9,000 from the date of his appointment, i.e., 15.09.2016. We note that the revised pay scale was made applicable to the Appellant from 27.12.2018, thus, the arrears of salary resulting in the differential pay scale is directed to be calculated and released by the Respondent No. 7 - University to the Appellant within six (6) weeks from the date of this order.”, the Court said.

As a result, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: DR. HARISH CHANDRA TIWARI VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 900

Click here to download order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V K Shukla, Adv. Mr. Sushant Mainali, Adv. Mr. Amit Gaurav Singh, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Parmanand Gaur, AOR Ms. Megha Gaur, Adv. Mr. Vibhav Mishra, Adv. Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AOR Ms. Rachna Gandhi, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Jain, Adv. Mr. Sunny Sachin Rawat, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kshitij Mudgal, AOR Mr. Vikalp Mudgal, Adv. Mr. Amit Jay Singh, Adv. Mr. Kartik Arora, Adv. Mr. Ansh Mittal, Adv. Mr. Durgesh Mishra, Adv.