Case at a Glance
Teachers and staff of UGC Model Colleges set up through a university in Marathwada, including at Ghansawangi in Jalna district, had worked for 10 to 12 years on 11-month appointments renewed after technical breaks, on consolidated pay. Proposals to sanction posts had been pending with the State Government since 2011, 2014 and 2018 without decision. The Aurangabad Bench called this “nothing but administrative inertia”, held that the State could not take advantage of its own inaction, rejected its claim that liability was capped at Rs. 1 crore a year for salaries, and directed regularisation from the date of initial appointment with pay on the UGC/university scale. Arrears for three years before the petitions were filed must be paid within six months, failing which 6% interest applies.
Under a UGC scheme for districts with low higher-education enrolment, Model Colleges were established through a State university; for the Ghansawangi (Jalna) college the UGC released Rs. 1.33 crore of an approved Rs. 2.67 crore on 29 June 2011. A Government Resolution of 14 March 2013 estimated the total cost at Rs. 8 crore and recorded that the annual recurring cost, about Rs. 1.50 crore including Rs. 1 crore for salaries, would be borne by the State. The university advertised Assistant Professor posts for 11 months at a time from 2011, renewing appointments yearly after technical breaks; the letters described the posts as temporary on consolidated pay.
The university sent proposals to the State for sanction of posts in 2011 and 2014, and again on 28 November 2018 citing financial strain, but none was decided; in 2014 the State told the university not to approve regular appointments. A Division Bench in 2021 had asked the Government to report on sanctioning posts, and an order of 17 February 2026 criticised its inaction. Teachers, non-teaching staff, an Assistant Librarian and an Assistant Professor in Applied Biotechnology filed five writ petitions seeking regularisation and pay scales. The State argued that there were no sanctioned posts, that courts cannot create posts, and that its liability was capped.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can the State refuse regularisation and regular pay to Model College staff who have served for over a decade, when it has itself sat on proposals to sanction their posts since 2011?
No Benefit From One’s Own Inaction
The Court held that the appointments were made under the university statutes (Sections 76–77 of the 1994 Act and Sections 102–103 of the 2016 Act), which do not distinguish between permanent and temporary appointments. It observed that “The inaction on the part of the State in not taking any decision on the proposal sent over more than a decade ago is nothing but administrative inertia,” and that “a person cannot take the benefit of his own wrong, delay or inaction.” Where no time limit is prescribed, a decision must be taken within a reasonable time, which the Court fixed at one year; proposals pending far beyond that were treated as deemed approved. It also rejected the argument that the signed temporary appointment letters barred the claim, relying on Somesh Thapliyal v. Vice Chancellor, H.N.B. Garhwal University, (2021) 09 SC CK 0007.
On pay, the Court said “Financial constraint is no ground for not paying salary as per the rules and regulations” and “Law does not permit payment of lesser salary than applicable to any post.” It read the UGC scheme and the State’s undertaking as making the State liable for the full recurring cost, describing the undertaking as “akin to a sovereign guarantee”. Drawing on Jaggo v. Union of India, (2024) 12 SC CK 0073, Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., (2025) 08 SC CK 0161, Sheo Narain Nagar v. State of U.P., (2017) 11 SC CK 0019 and Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), it held that long temporary service without illegality supports regularisation, and it applied promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation. Salary claims older than three years before filing were held barred by limitation.
What the Court Actually Held
- Petitioners are entitled to fixation of salary on the UGC/university pay scale for similar posts from the date of appointment, with actual monetary benefit from three years before the petitions were filed.
- Petitioners in continuous service up to the date of the order are entitled to regularisation from the date of initial appointment, on the same conditions as other university teachers and non-teaching staff.
- The State must pay arrears within six months without interest; after that, interest at 6% per annum applies.
- The State or university must pass orders regularising services and fixing pay scales; the rule was made absolute.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It confronts the long-term use of renewed short contracts against sanctioned work in public education.
- Governments cannot leave proposals undecided for years and then argue that no posts exist.
- Teachers in similar UGC-scheme colleges across Maharashtra may rely on it for regularisation and pay-parity claims.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Contract Teachers and Staff
- Long continuous service on renewed contracts, with lawful selection, can support regularisation despite ‘temporary’ appointment letters.
- Salary arrears are generally limited to three years before filing, so approach the court without delay.
For Counsel
- Plead administrative inertia and deemed approval where sanction proposals have been pending for years.
- Rely on Jaggo v. Union of India and Somesh Thapliyal against waiver arguments based on signed contract terms.
Key Takeaways
- Pending proposals for over a decade called administrative inertia.
- Regularisation from initial appointment for staff still in service.
- UGC/university pay scale; arrears limited to three years pre-filing.
- Arrears in six months or 6% interest.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who benefits from this Bombay High Court ruling?
Teachers and staff of UGC Model Colleges in Marathwada who filed the five writ petitions and remained in continuous service up to the date of the order.
Were the ‘temporary’ appointment letters a bar?
No. The Court held that, given repeated extensions, the State’s failure to decide sanction proposals and its 2013 undertaking, the disclaimer of permanency did not bind the petitioners.
How much arrears will be paid?
Actual monetary benefit runs from three years before the petitions were filed. Arrears must be paid within six months; after that 6% annual interest applies.
Conclusion
The Aurangabad Bench placed the cost of a decade of indecision on the State rather than on teachers who kept the colleges running. Its reasoning on deemed approval and full recurring liability will be relevant wherever central schemes depend on State follow-through.
Practical takeaway: Contract staff in State-backed colleges should document their selection, continuous service and pending sanction proposals; inaction by the Government can itself become the ground for relief.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com