Bombay High Court
ZEAL EDUCATION SOCIETYversusRAVINDRA MOHANRAO GADGE, AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case, directing the Grievance Committee to decide, as a matter of law, whether the deceased respondent was entitled to the Associate Professor pay scale after three years as Assistant Professor, irrespective of Ph.D. completion.
Summary
The petition concerned the entitlement of a deceased Assistant Professor, who completed his Ph.D. in 2016, to the pay scale of an Associate Professor after three years of service, as per the AICTE norms and a 2010 notification. The petitioner argued that the designation should be upgraded with the corresponding pay scale even before the Ph.D. was completed, while the respondent contended that the pay scale upgrade is contingent upon Ph.D. completion. The High Court found the impugned order lacking any reasoning and ordered a remand, directing the Grievance Committee to specifically determine the legal right to the Associate Professor pay scale after three years of service, irrespective of Ph.D. status. The Court emphasized the need for factual findings on dates of appointment, promotion, Ph.D. completion, and pay scale applicability. It set aside the earlier order, mandated the Committee to hear the matter by February 5 2026, and disposed of the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether an Assistant Professor is entitled to the Associate Professor pay scale upon completion of three years of service, independent of Ph.D. completion.
- Whether a designation upgrade without corresponding pay scale change is permissible under the 2010 notification and AICTE norms.
- Whether the Grievance Committee must consider specific factual dates to determine entitlement to pay scale and increments.
- Whether the impugned order should be set aside and the matter remanded for detailed consideration.
Subjects
- Assistant Professor
- Associate Professor
- pay scale
- Ph.D. requirement
- AICTE norms
- remand
- designation upgrade
- grievance committee
- higher education employment law
Judgment
904.WP.11664.2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.11664 OF 2024
Zeal Education Society ….Petitioner
Versus
Ravindra Mohanrao Gadge & Anr. ....Respondents
Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh a/w. Aniket Kanawade, Bhushan G.
Deshmukh, Vaibhav Thorave, Aryan M. Deshmukh, Irvin
D’Souza, & Karishma Shinde, for Petitioner.
Mr. Rajendra Anbhule, for Respondent No.2.
CORAM: SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
DATE : JANUARY 23, 2026
ORAL JUDGEMENT :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the
parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. The matter had been heard on an earlier occasion with a view to
crystallise the specific issues involved.
3. The core question that falls for consideration is whether an
Assistant Professor, who is entitled to complete his Ph.D. within a
period of seven years in terms of the norms applicable under the AICTE
Digitally
signed by
AARTI
AARTI GAJANAN
GAJANAN PALKAR
Page 1 of 6
PALKAR Date:
2026.01.29
17:51:07
+0530
JANUARY 23, 2026
Aarti Palkar
904.WP.11664.2024.doc
Notification dated November 28, 2005, is also entitled to be placed in
the pay scale of Associate Professor on completion of three years after
appointment as an Assistant Professor.
4. The original designations stood redesignated to Assistant
Professor, Associate Professor and Professor by a Notification dated
March 5, 2010. The General Conditions in the said notification, are
noteworthy:
(i) There shall be only three designations in respect of teachers in universities
and colleges, namely, Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors.
However, there shall be no change in the present designation in respect of Library
Personnel at various levels.
(ii) No one shall be eligible to be appointed, promoted or designated as
Professor, unless he or she possesses a Ph.D. and satisfies other academic
conditions, as laid down by the AICTE from time to time. This shall, however, not
affect those who are already designated as 'Professor'.
(iii) The pay of teachers and equivalent positions in Technical institutions shall
be fixed according to their designations in two pay bands of Rs. 15600-39100 and
Rs. 37400-67000 with appropriate "Academic Grade Pay" (AGP in short). Each
Pay Band shall have different stages of Academic Grade Pay which shall ensure
that teachers and other equivalent cadres covered under this Scheme, subject to
other conditions of eligibility being satisfied have multiple opportunities for
upward movement during their career.
(ix) Incumbent Assistant Professor and Incumbent Lecturers (Selection Grade)
who have completed 3 years in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 12,000-18,300 on
01.01.2006 shall be placed in Pay Band of Rs. 37400-67000 with AGP Pay of Rs.
9000 and shall be re-designated as Associate Professor.
[Emphasis Supplied]
Page 2 of 6
JANUARY 23, 2026
Aarti Palkar
904.WP.11664.2024.doc
5. On a plain reading of the Impugned Order, it is apparent that the
parties are left without any insight into what weighed with the Learned
Grievance Committee. In a nutshell, all that is stated in the Impugned
Order is that the terms and conditions applicable to an educational
institution would apply to the educational institution. It contains no
reasoning of any nature whatsoever on the contentions that were
presented to it.
6. Therefore, this is a fit case for a remand, but I do not think the
parties should run the risk of another unsatisfactory outcome on
remand without the scope of consideration being spelt out.
7. It is made clear that based on the Notification dated March 5,
2010, the Grievance Committee must answer is whether as a matter of
law, Respondent No.1 (who has now passed away) was entitled to the
pay scale of Assistant Professor upon completion of three years, must be
squarely dealt with.
8. Learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 fairly states that he has
not even claimed any increment because the same would have become
due only when he indeed completed his Ph.D, which he did in 2016. At
that stage, he was placed in the post of Professor directly. The dispute
relates to his entitlement to the pay scale that ought to be applicable to
upon completion of three years in the role as Assistant Professor.
Page 3 of 6
JANUARY 23, 2026
Aarti Palkar
904.WP.11664.2024.doc
Learned Advocate for the Petitioner contends that on completion of
three years the upgraded designation would be given, with no upgrade
in pay scale unless Ph.D. is completed.
9. Needless to say, when the law permits seven years to complete the
Ph.D. and also entails an Assistant Professor being placed in the pay
scale of Associate Professor, prima facie it would follow that
upgradation is not merely in name with no change in the payscale.
When seven years are permitted for completion of a Ph.D., it would not
follow that one would wait for seven years to be transferred to the post
of Associate Professor with pay scale too being deferred, or that with an
upgraded designation with no change in pay scale.
10. These are issues that ought to have been squarely dealt with by
the Grievance Committee, particularly when the Petitioner has relied
upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, All India Shri Shivaji
Memorial Society (Assims) and Ors.1, which deals with other similarly
placed individuals. A plain reading of the said judgement would also
show that one of the employees involved in that case, one, Dr. Madhavi
Ajay Pradhan had indeed acquired a Ph.D. subsequently and the Court
had directed that benefits ought to have been released. The Court also
1 Secretary, All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society (Assims) and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 2025
SCC OnLine SC 689
Page 4 of 6
JANUARY 23, 2026
Aarti Palkar
904.WP.11664.2024.doc
indicated that anyone completing Ph.D. would be entitled to claim
benefits in accordance with law.
11. Essential fact-finding requirements have to be met and applied,
such as the date of completion of Ph.D., and the applicable pay scale.
The grievance was meant to be deal with by the Grievance Committee.
Considering the non-application of mind in the Impugned Order to
answering the specific issue, the Respondent No. 1 who is the
beneficiary of the Impugned Order, is also left without reaons in the
Impugned Order to defend it well.
12. Therefore, it is made clear that the Grievance Committee shall
address itself to the specific facts of the case, including the date of
appointment; the date of placement in the next category; the date on
which the next pay scale should be made applicable; the date of
completion of Ph.D; the date from which the upgraded payscale would
apply and the date from which increments would apply; and a clear
finding as to whether the upgradation would be only in designation with
pay scale having to await for the completion of Ph.D.
13. It is also made clear that since Respondent No.1 has expired, and
it is his spouse who is pursuing the claim to monetary benefits, the
parties shall be permitted to be represented by advocates so that the
issues can be explained to the Committee.
Page 5 of 6
JANUARY 23, 2026
Aarti Palkar
904.WP.11664.2024.doc
14. With the aforesaid directions, the Impugned Order is set aside by
way of remand, making it clear that the aforesaid issues in this
judgment would be squarely addressed by the Grievance Committee and
duly dealt with. It is also made clear that only the aforesaid issues shall
fall for consideration, and no other issues which have already been
covered in the past would be permitted to be reopened.
15. Since the issues have already been crystallised, the Grievance
Committee is requested to convene a meeting no later than February 5,
2026 at 12.00 noon. On that day, appropriate instructions shall be
given to the parties to place their specific submissions, so that the
matter can be concluded within a timeframe of three months from
February 5, 2026.
16. With the aforesaid directions, the Petition is finally disposed of.
17. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
18. All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order shall be
taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court’s
website.
[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]
Page 6 of 6
JANUARY 23, 2026
Aarti Palkar
Checking your session…