W.P.Nos.32478 of 2024 & etc., batch

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.11.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

W.P.Nos.32478, 32481, 32485 of 2024, 31881, 31897, 31943, 32076,

32200, 32206, 32212, 33217, 32268, 32707, 33161, 33187, 35536,

35642, 36735, 33192, 33269, 33474, 34336, 34540, 34560, 34576,

34782, 35380 , 35642, 37717, 37741, 37754, 38112, 42644, 42735,

42866 of 2025

and

WMP.Nos. 35266, 35268, 35276, 35278, 35283, 35284 of 2024, 35693,

35694, 35696, 35699, 35710, 35712, 35717, 35719, 35779, 35771,

35773, 35776, 35957, 35958, 36093, 36094, 36096, 36097, 36101,

36102, 36103], 36106, 36108, 36109, 36110, 36112, 36188, 36192,

36194, 36195, 36620, 36624, 36627, 36629, 37254, 37257,37259, 37308,

37310, 37311, 37318, 37319, 37320, 37343, 37345, 37346, 37400,

37401, 37402, 37610, 37611, 37612, 38502, 38504, 38505, 38698,

38699, 38701, 38731, 38726, 38729, 38749, 38752, 38750, 38960,

38962, 38970, 39603, 39605, 39606, 39766, 39767, 39886, 39887,

41086, 41087, 41088, 41089, 42186, 42188, 42190, 42192, 42221,

42207, 42588, 42589, 42590, 47697, 47698, 47802, 47803, 47931, 47933

and 47934 of 2025

W.P.No.32478 of 2024

Dr.Devendiran,

S/o.Vinayagam Jayaraman …Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Registrar,

Anna University,

Sardar Patel Road,

Chennai - 600 025.

2. The Dean,

University College of Engineering, Kancheepuram

Anna University Constituent College,

1/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.32478 of 2024 & etc., batch

Chennai – Bangalore Highway, Ponnerikkarai,

Karaipettai Village and Post,

Kancheepuram – 631 552. ...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to absorb the

petitioner as an Assistant Professor, in the Department of Computer

Science and Engineering with effect from the date of appointment, and

grant all consequential benefits, and bring the petitioner under the revised

7

th

Pay Commission time scale of pay of an Assistant Professor as

enshrined in State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh and Ors. 2017 (1) SCC 148

from the date of appointment till the date of absorption.

For Petitioner

[in all W.Ps.]

: M/s.D.Geetha

For Respondents

[in all W.Ps.]

:Mr.V.Govarthanan

for M/s.Row and Reddy [R1]

COMMON ORDER

These writ petitions have been filed challenging the order passed

by the Registrar, Anna University dated 28.07.2025, thereby, restricted

the extension of the petitioners’ service till 31.08.2025.

2. The petitioners are qualified to be appointed as teaching fellows

as per the notification issued by the 2

nd

respondent dated 20.06.2011. The

petitioners had joined as teaching fellows in the 2

nd

respondent college.

The 2

nd

respondent college is a constituent college of 1

st

respondent.

2/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.32478 of 2024 & etc., batch

Similar to the second respondent, several other colleges were established

at the regional level by the Registrar, Anna University by independent

enactments. In the year 2011, a policy decision was taken to merge all

those colleges and regional Universities and bring them under one

umbrella i.e., the Registrar, Anna University, Chennai by the Tamil Nadu

University Laws(Amendment and Repeal) Act, 2011 (Act 20 of 2011). It

provides for way and means of accommodating the then existing staff and

the assets and liabilities of the merged Universities. Thereafter, the

Government constituted a meeting to oversee the merger process. The

committee made several recommendations pertaining to the staff engaged

on adhoc basis. Accordingly, the service of the persons currently engaged

on adhoc basis in the constituent college will have to be specifically

reviewed by the Registrar, Anna University and their services have to be

utilised, where their services are genuinely required and their

engagements fulfils the relevant University regulations.

3. In the process of regularisation of adhoc appointees, if the adhoc

appointees fulfil all requirements under the 1

st

respondent, they may be

considered for regularisation. However, the said recommendations were

not given effect.

3/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.32478 of 2024 & etc., batch

4. The respondents issued notification calling for appointment to

the post of temporary visiting faculty/teaching fellow in the second

respondent college in various Departments. The petitioners submitted

applications and they were directed to appear for screening test and

interview. They were selected and appointed as teaching fellows in their

respective departments. In fact, they were selected by the Selection

Committee through the selection process as prescribed by the University

Grants Commission and All India Council for Technical Education and as

that of regular Assistant Professor post.

5. Though the petitioners were selected as teaching fellows, they

were performing the job of Assistant Professor, in all aspects. They have

also performed the duties of examination hall supervisor, correction of

answer papers of students, external examiner for practical examinations,

Anna University examination representative, University question paper

key setting and projects and viva-voce examinations for the students.

Further, there has been no regular appointment to the post of Assistant

Professor for the past 15 years. All the colleges are running with the

teaching fellows on payment of consolidated salary of Rs.30,000/-. The

pay scale applicable to regularly appointed Assistant Professor has been

revised as per 7

th

Pay Commission recommendations and the minimum of

4/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.32478 of 2024 & etc., batch

the time scale of pay to the post of Assistant Professor is Rs.57,700/-

along with House Rent Allowance at Rs.13,848/- and Dearness allowance

at Rs.26,542/-. Therefore, the petitioners are treated as visiting

faculties/teaching fellows on payment of consolidated salary.

6. Some of the teaching fellows filed writ petitions before this

Court. This Court, by an order dated 09.11.2020 in W.P.Nos.24819 of

2018 & batch, has directed the Anna University to absorb the petitioners

therein in service as temporary Assistant Professors till the regular

recruitment takes place. Aggrieved by the same, the University preferred

writ appeal. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court by way of an

interim order directed the Anna University to proceed with the

recruitment giving weightage to the incumbent teaching fellows. Based

on the interim order, the Anna University issued notification dated

24.11.2023 to fill up the vacancies of Assistant Professor in its constituent

colleges.

7. The petitioners had applied for the same and were selected by the

appropriate selection committee as teaching fellows. Therefore, the

Division Bench, in the batch of writ appeals in W.A.Nos.898 of 2021 &

batch, by an order dated 01.04.2025, has held that there was proper

5/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.32478 of 2024 & etc., batch

recruitment notification by Anna University and the petitioners therein

were selected by the selection committee as teaching fellows and they are

entitled for absorption.

8. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Division Bench, the Anna

University filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where the

Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the order passed by the Division Bench

regularizing the services of the teaching fellows therein in

SLP.Nos.17339 to 17342 of 2025. However, without regularising the

petitioners in the post of Assistant Professor by absorption in their

respective departments, the Registrar of Anna University extended their

service till 31.08.2025. The petitioners herein are also standing on the

same footing, and they are entitled to the same relief as held by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, as the order of the Court is not in

personam and all similarly placed candidates need not approach the

Court.

9. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there are

13 University College of Engineering and 3 regional campuses

functioning as constituent colleges of Anna University established by the

Government of India with an intention to promote technical education

among the economically weaker sections of society in Tamil Nadu.

6/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.32478 of 2024 & etc., batch

10. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the

petitioners were appointed purely on temporary basis as teaching fellows

or visiting faculties with explicit terms and conditions specified in their

appointment orders. Accordingly, they were appointed for a period of six

months on consolidated salary. Their assignment does not confer any

right or privilege for regular or tenure appointment in the University.

Their assignments are purely temporary and it is liable to be terminated at

any point of time. Thereafter, their tenures were periodically extended

from time to time.

11. By the order impugned in these writ petitions, the petitioners’

services were also extended till 31.08.2025 and it does not mean that their

services will be made permanent from the date of their initial

appointment, they were appointed only for a period of six months and

thereafter continuously their services were extended till 31.08.2025.

Therefore, they ought not to have challenged the order of extension, since

their services might be extended in the future as well till the appointment

of the Assistant Professors in the regular vacancies.

7/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.32478 of 2024 & etc., batch

12. Further, they were appointed to handle teaching for students as

a stop gap arrangement that too on temporary basis. Their appointment

were not through due selection process as required by the relevant rules

and norms laid down by All India Council for Technical Education.

13. The procedure of temporary selection of teaching fellows is

entirely different from the selection process prescribed for direct

recruitment under the Anna University Act and Service Statutes of the

Anna University. In fact, notification was issued by the Regional Director

or Dean of the Campus in the University website, therefore, their

selection was not in consonance with the selection process prescribed

under the Anna University Act. They were appointed on need basis and

the reservation policy applicable to regular appointment process was not

followed. Therefore, their appointment cannot be regularized by

absorption. Therefore, any kind of regularisation for the temporary

appointment violates the reservation roster and offends Articles 14 and 16

of the Constitution of India. Though the respondents were making

endeavour to fill up the regular vacancies, the petitioners filed several

writ petitions and got stay order and stalled the entire selection process of

8/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.32478 of 2024 & etc., batch

regular appointments. Therefore, they are not entitled to be absorbed as

Assistant Professors in the respective department.

14. In order to safeguard the careers and future prospects of the

students, the University had resorted to fill the teaching faculty post

through temporary appointments of teaching fellow/visiting faculty until

the sanctioned posts are filled up. He also relied upon the Government

Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.74, Personnel and Administrative Reforms

Department, dated 27.06.2013, which directs not to regularize the service

of the adhoc employees currently employed in the regional Universities

and constituent colleges of Anna University.

15. Similarly, another order has also been passed by the

Government issuing guidelines for regularization in G.O.Ms.No.131,

Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.11.2020.

16. Further, the fact that the petitioners are continuing as casual

employees on temporary basis, does not confer any right for

regularisation on permanent basis. Therefore, the petitioners are not

entitled for absorption and regularisation. Hence, the respondents counsel

prayed for dismissal of these writ petitions.

9/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.32478 of 2024 & etc., batch

17. Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and have

perused the material available on record.

18. The petitioners were appointed on various dates in various

departments as teaching fellows/visiting faculty between 2010 and 2014.

They were selected based on an appropriate selection process including

interview. Their appointments were duly rectified by the Anna University

and their services were continuously extended from time to time from the

date of their initial appointments. That apart, they were selected in the

sanctioned posts and their appointments were made on temporary adhoc

basis, however, the petitioners have been performing their duties on par

with the Assistant Professors.

19. The Registrar, Anna University had appointed similarly placed

teaching fellows/visiting faculty and regularised their services as

Assistant Professor by resolution No.192.34, insofar as 97 temporary

teaching faculty in the year 2006 and 2007.

20. In W.P.No.24819 of 2018 & etc., batch, dated 09.11.2020, this

Court held that the services put in by the petitioners for several years,

10/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.32478 of 2024 & etc., batch

even though is contractual in nature, has a lot of significance and with

regard to filling up of the vacant posts of Assistant Professor, the

petitioners satisfied the minimum qualification for direct recruitment for

the same. The nature of duties performed by them and their functions as

instructors to certify the Institutes for affiliation, their research paper

publications etc., clearly show that they have been performing the

functions of a regularly appointed Assistant Professors and finally,

directed the Anna University to engage the petitioners as temporary

Assistant Professors until the regular recruitment is completed and the

vacant posts are filled up. At the time of filling up the post on regular

basis, the Registrar, Anna University was directed to follow the

observations made in paragraph 49 in W.P.(MD)No.24819 of 2018 dated

09.11.2020. Paragraph 49 reads as follows:

“49. When it comes to the question of Regularization

of service as Assistant Professor which is claimed by the

petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant this relief.

Where the temporary or ad hoc appointment is continued

for a long time, the Court presumes that there is need and

warrant for a regular post and accordingly considers

regularization. But, there is no rule of thumb in such

matters. The Court will have to look into the relevant facts

and circumstances of a given case before ordering for

regularization of service. In the present case, the issue of

11/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.32478 of 2024 & etc., batch

regularization will not be confined only to the petitioners

and it involves nearly 310 temporary teaching fellows

whose services are utilized by the respondent University.

Therefore, mechanically ordering for regularization will

have a cascading effect on the cadre strength, policy of

reservation and financial implications. The petitioners have

the distinct advantage under the UGC Regulations and

AICTE Regulations for counting their past services at the

time of direct/regular recruitment. The petitioners have all

the qualifications and they have been appointed by a

properly Constituted Committee and therefore they can be

accommodated in the vacant posts as and when the regular

appointment takes place. It is only during the regular

appointment, the cadre strength is fixed as per the

requirements and the funds allocated by the Finance

Committee and it will be even more easier and proper to

accommodate the petitioners while carrying out the process

of regular appointments.”

21. This Court further directed the Anna University to engage the

petitioners’ services as Assistant Professors in the respective departments

and shall pay the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant

Professor.

12/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.32478 of 2024 & etc., batch

22. Aggrieved by the same, the Anna University preferred appeals

in batch of writ appeals in W.A.Nos. 898 of 2021 & etc., batch. This

Court dismissed the appeal by an order dated 01.04.2025. Further, it is

also relevant to extract paragraph Nos.46 to 48 in the batch of W.As is as

follows:

“34. In paragraphs 46 to 48 learned Single Judge has

justified the conclusion that parity of pay must be accorded in the

following terms:-

46.The next issue that has to be taken into

consideration is with regard to the pay that has to be made

to the Petitioners by the Respondent University. Both the

UGC Regulations as well as the AICTE Regulations makes

it very clear that even in case of ad hoc or temporary

service, the emoluments paid to such contract teachers

should not be less than the monthly gross salary of a

regularly appointed Assistant Professor. The Anna

University gave scant regard to these Regulations and

continued with the practice of consolidated pay to the

Petitioners which was nowhere near the actual pay made to

a regularly appointed Assistant Professor. It is again

reiterated that the Petitioners even though were called as

Teaching Fellows, were actually performing the duties of an

Assistant Professor with all qualifications. Therefore, they

should have been paid the emoluments on par with the

monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant

13/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.32478 of 2024 & etc., batch

Professor.

47.It is also important to take note of the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v.

Jagjit Singh and Others reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148. The

relevant portions of the judgment are extracted hereunder:

42. All the judgments noticed in paras 7 to 24 herein above,

pertain to employees engaged on regular basis, who were

claiming higher wages, under the principle of “equal pay for

equal work”. The claim raised by such employees was premised

on the ground, that the duties and responsibilities rendered by

them were against the same post for which a higher pay scale was

being allowed in other government departments. Or alternatively,

their duties and responsibilities were the same as of other posts

with different designations, but they were placed in a lower scale.

Having been painstakingly taken through the parameters laid

down by this Court, wherein the principle of “equal pay for equal

work” was invoked and considered, it would be just and

appropriate to delineate the parameters laid down by this Court.

In recording the said parameters, we have also adverted to some

other judgments pertaining to temporary employees (also dealt

with, in the instant judgment), wherein also, this Court had the

occasion to express the legal position with reference to the

principle of “equal pay for equal work”. Our consideration, has

led us to the following deductions:

42.1. The “onus of proof” of parity in the duties and

responsibilities of the subject post with the reference post under

the principle of “equal pay for equal work” lies on the person

14/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.32478 of 2024 & etc., batch

who claims it. He who approaches the court has to establish that

the subject post occupied by him requires him to discharge equal

work of equal value, as the reference post (see Orissa University

of Agriculture & Technology case [Orissa University of

Agriculture & Technology v. Manoj K. Mohanty, (2003) 5 SCC

188 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 645] , UT Chandigarh, Admn. v. Manju

Mathur [U.T. Chandigarh, Admn. v. Manju Mathur, (2011) 2 SCC

452 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 348] , SAIL case [SAIL v. Dibyendu

Bhattacharya, (2011) 11 SCC 122 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 192] and

National Aluminium Co. Ltd. case [National Aluminium Co. Ltd.

v. Ananta Kishore Rout, (2014) 6 SCC 756 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S)

353] ).

42.2. The mere fact that the subject post occupied by

the claimant is in a “different department” vis-à-vis the

reference post does not have any bearing on the

determination of a claim under the principle of “equal pay

for equal work”. Persons discharging identical duties

cannot be treated differently in the matter of their pay,

merely because they belong to different departments of the

Government (see Randhir Singh case [Randhir Singh v.

Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 119]

and D.S. Nakara case [D.S. Nakara v. Union of India,

(1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145] ).

42.3. The principle of “equal pay for equal work”,

applies to cases of unequal scales of pay, based on no

classification or irrational classification (see Randhir

Singh case [Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC

15/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.32478 of 2024 & etc., batch

618 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 119] ). For equal pay, the

employees concerned with whom equation is sought,

should be performing work, which besides being

functionally equal, should be of the same quality and

sensitivity (see Federation of All India Customs and

Central Excise Stenographers case [Federation of All India

Customs and Central Excise Stenographers v. Union of

India, (1988) 3 SCC 91 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 673] , Mewa

Ram Kanojia case [Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India

Institute of Medical Sciences, (1989) 2 SCC 235 : 1989

SCC (L&S) 329] , Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union

case [Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union v. Union of

India, (1991) 1 SCC 619 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 621] and S.C.

Chandra case [S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand, (2007)

8 SCC 279 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 897 : 2 SCEC 943] ).

42.4. Persons holding the same rank/designation (in

different departments), but having dissimilar powers, duties

and responsibilities, can be placed in different scales of pay

and cannot claim the benefit of the principle of “equal pay

for equal work” (see Randhir Singh case [Randhir Singh v.

Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 119] ,

State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal

Staff Assn. [State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat

Personal Staff Assn., (2002) 6 SCC 72 : 2002 SCC (L&S)

822] and Hukum Chand Gupta case [Hukum Chand Gup ta

v. ICAR, (2012) 12 SCC 666 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 493] ).

Therefore, the principle would not be automatically

16/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.32478 of 2024 & etc., batch

invoked merely because the subject and reference posts

have the same nomenclature.

42.5. In determining equality of functions and

responsibilities under the principle of “equal pay for equal

work”, it is necessary to keep in mind that the duties of the

two posts should be of equal sensitivity, and also,

qualitatively similar. Differentiation of pay scales for posts

with difference in degree of responsibility, reliability and

confidentiality, would fall within the realm of valid

classification, and therefore, pay differentiation would be

legitimate and permissible (see Federation of All India

Customs and Central Excise Stenographers case

[Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise

Stenographers v. Union of India, (1988) 3 SCC 91 : 1988

SCC (L&S) 673] and SBI case [SBI v. M.R. Ganesh Babu,

(2002) 4 SCC 556 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 568] ). The nature of

work of the subject post should be the same and not less

onerous than the reference post. Even the volume of work

should be the same. And so also, the level of responsibility.

If these parameters are not met, parity cannot be claimed

under the principle of “equal pay for equal work” (see

State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia [State of U.P. v. J.P.

Chaurasia, (1989) 1 SCC 121 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 71] and

Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union case [Grih Kalyan

Kendra Workers' Union v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC

619 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 621] ).

42.6. For placement in a regular pay scale, the

17/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.32478 of 2024 & etc., batch

claimant has to be a regular appointee. The claimant

should have been selected on the basis of a regular process

of recruitment. An employee appointed on a temporary

basis cannot claim to be placed in the regular pay scale

(see Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology case

[Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology v. Manoj

K. Mohanty, (2003) 5 SCC 188 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 645] ).

42.7. Persons performing the same or similar

functions, duties and responsibilities, can also be placed in

different pay scales. Such as — “selection grade”, in the

same post. But this difference must emerge out of a

legitimate foundation, such as — merit, or seniority, or

some other relevant criteria (see State of U.P. v. J.P.

Chaurasia [State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, (1989) 1 SCC

121 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 71] ).

42.8. If the qualifications for recruitment to the

subject post vis-à-vis the reference post are different, it may

be difficult to conclude that the duties and responsibilities

of the posts are qualitatively similar or comparable (see

Mewa Ram Kanojia case [Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India

Institute of Medical Sciences, (1989) 2 SCC 235 : 1989

SCC (L&S) 329] and State of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy [State

of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy, (2004) 1 SCC 347 : 2004 SCC

(L&S) 225] ). In such a case the principle of “equal pay for

equal work” cannot be invoked.

42.9. The reference post with which parity is claimed

under the principle of “equal pay for equal work” has to

18/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.32478 of 2024 & etc., batch

be at the same hierarchy in the service as the subject post.

Pay scales of posts may be different, if the hierarchy of the

posts in question, and their channels of promo tion, are

different. Even if the duties and responsibilities are same,

parity would not be permissible, as against a superior post,

such as a promotional post (see Union of India v. Pradip

Kumar Dey [Union of India v. Pradip Kumar Dey, (2000) 8

SCC 580 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 56] and Hukum Chand Gupta

case [Hukum Chand Gupta v. ICAR, (2012) 12 SCC 666 :

(2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 493] ).

42.10. A comparison between the subject post and

the reference post under the principle of “equal pay for

equal work” cannot be made where the subject post and

the reference post are in different establishments, having a

different management. Or even, where the establishments

are in different geographical locations, though owned by

the same master (see Harbans Lal case [Harbans Lal v.

State of H.P., (1989) 4 SCC 459 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 71] ).

Persons engaged differently, and being paid out of different

funds, would not be entitled to pay parity (see Official

Liquidator v. Dayanand [Official Liquidator v. Dayanand,

(2008) 10 SCC 1 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 943] ).

42.11. Different pay scales, in certain eventualities,

would be permissible even for posts clubbed together at the

same hierarchy in the cadre. As for instance, if the duties

and responsibilities of one of the posts are more onerous,

or are exposed to higher nature of operational work/risk,

19/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.32478 of 2024 & etc., batch

the principle of “equal pay for equal work” would not be

applicable. And also when the reference post includes the

responsibility to take crucial decisions, and that is not so

for the subject post (see SBI case [SBI v. M.R. Ganesh

Babu, (2002) 4 SCC 556 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 568] ).

42.12. The priority given to different types of posts

under the prevailing policies of the Government can also

be a relevant factor for placing different posts under

different pay scales. Herein also, the principle of “equal

pay for equal work” would not be applicable (see State of

Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn.

[State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal

Staff Assn., (2002) 6 SCC 72 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 822] ).

42.13. The parity in pay, under the principle of

“equal pay for equal work”, cannot be claimed merely on

the ground that at an earlier point of time the subject post

and the reference post, were placed in the same pay scale.

The principle of “equal pay for equal work” is applicable

only when it is shown, that the incumbents of the subject

post and the reference post, discharge similar duties and

responsibilities (see State of W.B. v. Minimum Wages

Inspectors Assn. [State of W.B. v. W.B. Minimum Wages

Inspectors Assn., (2010) 5 SCC 225 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S)

1])

42.14. For parity in pay scales under the principle of

“equal pay for equal work”, equation in the nature of duties is of

paramount importance. If the principal nature of duties of one

20/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.32478 of 2024 & etc., batch

post is teaching, whereas that of the other is non-teaching, the

principle would not be applicable. If the dominant nature of

duties of one post is of control and management, whereas the

subject post has no such duties, the principle would not be

applicable. Likewise, if the central nature of duties of one post is

of quality control, whereas the subject post has minimal duties of

quality control, the principle would not be applicable (see U.T.

Chandigarh, Admn. v. Manju Mathur [U.T. Chandigarh, Admn. v.

Manju Mathur, (2011) 2 SCC 452 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 348] ).

42.15. There can be a valid classification in the matter of

pay scales between employees even holding posts with the same

nomenclature i.e. between those discharging duties at the

headquarters, and others working at the institutional/sub-office

level (see Hukum Chand Gupta case [Hukum Chand Gupta v.

ICAR, (2012) 12 SCC 666 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 493] ), when the

duties are qualitatively dissimilar.

42.16. The principle of “equal pay for equal work” would

not be applicable, where a differential higher pay scale is

extended to persons discharging the same duties and holding the

same designation, with the objective of ameliorating stagnation,

or on account of lack of promotional avenues (see Hukum Chand

Gupta case [Hukum Chand Gupta v. ICAR, (2012) 12 SCC 666 :

(2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 493] ).

42.17. Where there is no comparison between one set of

employees of one organisation, and another set of employees of a

different organisation, there can be no question of equation of

pay scales under the principle of “equal pay for equal work”,

21/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.32478 of 2024 & etc., batch

even if two organisations have a common employer. Likewise, if

the management and control of two organisations is with different

entities which are independent of one another, the principle of

“equal pay for equal work” would not apply (see S.C. Chandra

case [S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand, (2007) 8 SCC 279 :

(2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 897 : 2 SCEC 943] and National Aluminium

Co. Ltd. case [National Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Ananta Kishore

Rout, (2014) 6 SCC 756 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 353] ).

48.It is clear from the above judgment that the Petitioners are

entitled for the same pay as stipulated in the Regulations for performance

of their duty on par with the regularly appointed Assistant Professors.”

23. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners are also entitled for the

same pay as stipulated in the regulation for performance of their duties on

par with regularly appointed Assistant Professors.

24. In fact the orders passed by the Division Bench were also

confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP.Nos.17339 to 17342 of

2025 by an order dated 25.07.2025. The Hon’ble Supreme Court with

some modification disposed the SLPs. The modification order is as

follows:

“6. After hearing learned senior counsel appearing

on behalf of both the sides, it is seen from the record that

22/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.32478 of 2024 & etc., batch

out of all the writ petitions filed praying for regularisation,

five Teaching Fellows, namely, T.R.Kannan, Mr.N.Subash,

Mr.E.Raja Sherin, Mr.A.Krishna Prakash and Ms.N.Bathlin

Nelmin were granted regularisation. Their case for

regularisation be considered and appropriate orders as

directed be passed within eight weeks from today. It is made

clear that the benefit of regularisation shall accrue from the

date of the order of the Single Judge, i.e., 09.11.2020,

though the consequential benefits shall follow notionally.

7. So far as the direction for grant of monthly gross

salary of a regular Assistant Professor to the Teaching

Fellows is concerned, with respect to the respondents, it will

suffice to observe that the said benefit would be applicable

in terms of the directions as issued by the learned Single

Judge vide order dated 09.11.2020 from the said date. The

arrears of difference in salary, if any, be paid to them within

four months.

8. With the aforesaid modification and clarification,

all the appeals stand disposed of pending application(s), if

any, shall stand disposed of.”

25. The issue in these writ petitions and the issues dealt with by

this Court are one and the same, therefore, the petitioners are also entitled

for the same directions.

26. In view of the above, the Registrar, Anna University is directed

to engage the petitioners as Assistant Professors and treat the petitioners

23/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.32478 of 2024 & etc., batch

as temporary Assistant Professors with effect from the date on which,

their services expired in their respective posts until the regular

recruitment is completed and vacant posts are filled up.

27. At the time of filling up all the respective posts on a regular

basis, the directions issued in the batch of writ petitions in the order

passed in W.P.(MD).No.24819 of 2018 in paragraph No.49 shall be

followed scrupulously. The respondents are directed to pay monthly gross

salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professors to the petitioners from

the date of their service as Assistant Professors.

28. With these directions, all the writ petitions are allowed. No

costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

19.11.2025

mp

Index:Yes/No

Neutral Citation: Yes/No

Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order

Note: Registry is directed to incorporate cause titles for all the cases and

issue order copy.

24/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.32478 of 2024 & etc., batch

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

The matter is listed today under the caption 'for being

mentioned' in the Chamber, at the instance of the learned counsel for the

petitioner.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

3.No further order is required in these Writ Petitions.

However, the petitioners are at liberty to file a petition for clarification

regarding the order dated 19.11.2025. It is also clarified that the

petitioners may file a single petition for all the writ petitions in the batch

concerning the order dated 19.11.2025.

08.01.2026

ps

To

1. The Registrar,

Anna University,

Sardar Patel Road,

Chennai - 600 025.

25/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.32478 of 2024 & etc., batch

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

mp

W.P.Nos.32478 of 2024 & etc., batch

19.11.2025

26/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis