Supreme Court Grants Associate Professor Revised Pay from Appointment Date, Rejects University's Typographical Error Defence

A Division Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi held that UGC Regulations bind universities absolutely, entitling the appellant to arrears from September 2016.

The Supreme Court on 10 August 2026 set aside a Uttarakhand High Court order that had denied an Associate Professor the benefit of the revised University Grants Commission pay scale from his date of appointment. The Court held that Uttarakhand Sanskrit University, Haridwar, which had itself advertised the post at the higher pay band of Rs. 37,400–67,000 with an Academic Grade Pay of Rs. 9,000, could not later claim that figure was a typographical error. The Court found the university was bound by MHRD guidelines and UGC Regulations and directed payment of arrears covering the period from 15 September 2016 to 27 December 2018, within six weeks.

How the Dispute Reached the Court

The Ministry of Human Resource Development issued guidelines on 31 December 2008 revising the pay scale of teachers in universities and colleges following the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission. Those guidelines, under Point 2(a)(viii), fixed the pay band of Associate Professors at Rs. 37,400–67,000 with an AGP of Rs. 9,000 and stated that directly recruited Associate Professors would be placed in that band at the appropriate stage.

The UGC, acting on those directions, issued Regulations dated 30 June 2010 implementing the revised scale for the Associate Professor cadre. The Government of Uttarakhand followed with its own order dated 22 August 2012, communicated by the Principal Secretary, directing that the post of Associate Professor in state universities carry the revised scale of Rs. 37,400–67,000 with AGP of Rs. 9,000.

Against that backdrop, Uttarakhand Sanskrit University, Haridwar — a university notified under the UGC Act — issued Advertisement No. 01/2015 on 22 April 2015 for recruitment to Associate Professor posts. The advertisement stated the pay band for those posts as Rs. 37,400–67,000 with AGP of Rs. 9,000, consistent with the MHRD guidelines and UGC Regulations.

Dr. Harish Chandra Tiwari applied, was selected, and received an appointment letter dated 29 August 2016. His actual joining date was 15 September 2016. The appointment letter, however, prescribed a pay scale of Rs. 15,600–39,100 with a Grade Pay of Rs. 8,000 — the pre-revised scale — contradicting both the advertisement and the central guidelines.

Dr. Tiwari made representations. The University Registrar acknowledged the discrepancy and wrote to the Government of Uttarakhand on 17 November 2016, seeking directions to grant the revised scale, noting that other state universities had already extended that benefit from 22 August 2012. In December 2016, the university itself issued a fresh advertisement for another post of Associate Professor, again mentioning the pay scale as Rs. 37,400–67,000 with AGP of Rs. 9,000. Through an RTI query, Dr. Tiwari also obtained a clarificatory letter dated 9 January 2018, in which the university's Registrar admitted that the UGC pay scale for Associate Professors is Rs. 37,400–67,000 with Grade Pay Rs. 9,000, and that this revised scale was being followed in the university.

Dr. Tiwari then filed Writ Petition No. 381 of 2018 before the Uttarakhand High Court. The Single Judge disposed of it on 3 October 2018, directing the State Government to take a decision within four weeks, maintaining parity with Associate Professors in other state universities who had already received the revised pay. Following that direction, the State Government passed a letter dated 27 December 2018 upgrading the pay scale of Associate Professors — but only with immediate effect from that date.

The University then issued an office order on 29 December 2018 revising Dr. Tiwari's pay scale to Rs. 37,400–67,000 with AGP of Rs. 9,000, with effect from 27 December 2018. Dr. Tiwari filed a second writ petition, Writ Petition No. 67 of 2021, seeking the revised scale from his date of appointment, 15 September 2016. The High Court dismissed that petition, relying on the university's counter affidavit, which claimed the pay scale mentioned in the original advertisement was a typographical error and that the Government Order of 27 June 2011 — which had sanctioned the posts at the lower scale — was the operative instrument. Dr. Tiwari then filed SLP (C) No. 22417 of 2024 before the Supreme Court.

The University's Position and the High Court's Reasoning

Before both the High Court and the Supreme Court, the university advanced two arguments. First, it contended that the pay scale of Rs. 37,400–67,000 with AGP of Rs. 9,000 printed in Advertisement No. 01/2015 was a typographical error, and that the actual applicable scale was Rs. 15,600–39,100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 8,000. Second, it relied on the Government Order dated 27 June 2011 — which had originally sanctioned the posts of Associate Professor at the lower scale — as the governing instrument, such that Dr. Tiwari could not claim a higher scale.

The High Court accepted this reasoning. It held that Dr. Tiwari could not seek to capitalise on what it viewed as a mistake in the advertisement and dismissed his writ petition.

Why the Supreme Court Disagreed

The Court identified three independent grounds for setting aside the High Court's order.

Binding UGC Regulations. The MHRD guidelines of 31 December 2008 specifically prescribed the revised pay band for Associate Professors, and the UGC adopted those guidelines verbatim in its Regulations of 30 June 2010. The university is notified under the UGC Act. In its own RTI response dated 9 January 2018, the university unequivocally stated it was governed by and had been following UGC Regulations. The Court held that once the university accepted it was bound by those regulations, it was obliged to implement the revised pay scale from the date the regulations became applicable. Since Dr. Tiwari was appointed after both the MHRD guidelines and the UGC Regulations were in place, denial of the revised scale from his appointment date was “untenable.”

Principle of parity. The Government of Uttarakhand's order of 22 August 2012 had directed the revised pay scale for Associate Professors in Kumaon University, Uttarakhand Open University and Doon University. The university argued that it was not expressly named in that communication. The Court rejected this. It held that the principle of parity requires similarly situated persons to be treated alike, and Associate Professors in Uttarakhand Sanskrit University were similarly situated to those in the named universities. The omission of the university's name in the communication could not be a reason to deny the revised scale.

The typographical error defence. The Court described the university's typographical error contention as “beyond our comprehension.” The pay scale in the advertisement — Rs. 37,400–67,000 with AGP of Rs. 9,000 — was entirely consistent with the MHRD guidelines and UGC Regulations in force at the time of the advertisement. A figure that mirrors the applicable central regulations cannot be brushed aside as a clerical slip. The Court held that the university, having advertised that pay scale and having itself acknowledged adherence to UGC Regulations, was estopped from resiling from the advertised scale. The Court added that even if one were to assume the advertisement contained an error, the applicable regulations were unambiguous, and where there is conflict between an advertisement and the governing regulations, the regulations prevail.

The Court observed that “clinching evidence on record” showed the revised pay scale was applicable to the post of Associate Professor before Dr. Tiwari was even appointed. The university's conduct — in advertising the correct scale, acknowledging UGC applicability by RTI response, and re-advertising the higher scale in December 2016 — made its typographical error argument self-defeating.

The Court also noted that the university had, by denying the revised pay and advancing the error contention, “unnecessarily dragged the Appellant into this litigation causing hardship” and that universities “ought to honour its teachers and uphold their rights.”

Outcome

The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal and set aside the High Court judgment in Writ Petition No. 67 of 2021 (decided on 5 July 2024). The Court declared that Dr. Tiwari is entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs. 37,400–67,000 with an AGP of Rs. 9,000 from his date of appointment, 15 September 2016. Since the university had already extended the revised scale from 27 December 2018, the Court directed Uttarakhand Sanskrit University to calculate the arrears arising from the differential pay for the period 15 September 2016 to 27 December 2018, and release the same to Dr. Tiwari within six weeks from the date of the order. Pending applications were disposed of. No order as to costs was made.