SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld a Single Bench judgment directing the Union Territory administration to grant enhanced remuneration to vocational instructors engaged on an academic arrangement basis in Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs), ruling that employees performing identical duties cannot be paid differently merely because they are funded under different schemes.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 268/2025) filed by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and the Skill Development Department against 25 vocational instructors working in various ITIs across Jammu and Kashmir.
The appeal challenged a July 4, 2025 judgment passed by a Single Judge in WP(C) No. 208/2021 titled Fayaz Ahmad Bhat and Others versus UT of JK and Others.
Background of the Case
The respondents, including Fayaz Ahmad Bhat and several other vocational instructors, had been engaged between 2009 and 2011 on an academic arrangement basis at different ITIs under the Self-Finance Scheme of the Skill Development Department.
Initially, they were paid a monthly honorarium of Rs 4,000. The honorarium was later revised through Government Order No. 109-Edu/Tech of 2012 dated June 15, 2012, under which degree-holding vocational instructors became entitled to Rs 6,000 per month, while ITI/CTI qualified instructors were granted Rs 5,500.
Their remuneration was again enhanced under a 2017 government order, and those benefits were extended to them without dispute.
The controversy arose after the issuance of Government Order No. 34-JK(DSD) of 2020 dated October 12, 2020, whereby remuneration for candidates engaged on an academic arrangement basis in ITIs and Polytechnics was increased to Rs 15,000 for gazetted posts and Rs 12,000 for non-gazetted posts.
However, the department declined to extend the revised remuneration to the petitioners on the ground that they had been engaged under the Self Finance Scheme and not against sanctioned gazetted or non-gazetted vacancies.
After their representations failed to evoke any response, the instructors approached the High Court seeking implementation of the 2020 government order in their favour.
Appearing for the appellants, Government Advocate Ilyas Nazir Laway argued that the writ court had misinterpreted the 2020 government order.
He contended that the enhanced remuneration was specifically meant for candidates engaged against clear gazetted and non-gazetted posts in the ITI and Polytechnic sectors and did not apply to those engaged under the Self Finance Scheme.
On the other side, advocates Zamir Abdullah and Zahir Abdullah, appearing for the vocational instructors, maintained that the government order made no distinction between employees engaged under the Self Finance Scheme and those appointed against sanctioned posts, so long as both categories were working on an academic arrangement basis and discharging identical duties.
The Division Bench agreed with the interpretation adopted by the writ court and held that the 2020 government order extended enhanced remuneration to all candidates engaged on academic arrangement basis in ITIs and Polytechnics.
The court observed that references to gazetted and non-gazetted posts in the order were made only for determining the rate of remuneration according to the nature of duties performed.
“The benefit of enhanced remuneration has been granted to all the candidates engaged on academic arrangement basis in ITIs and Polytechnics,” the Bench said.
The judges further clarified that those performing duties attached to gazetted posts were entitled to Rs 15,000, while those discharging functions akin to non-gazetted posts would receive Rs 12,000.
Rejecting the government’s contention regarding the Self Finance Scheme, the Bench held that the source from which wages are paid cannot justify discrimination where the nature of work remains identical.
“It cannot be said that those who are engaged as Lecturers or Vocational Instructors on academic arrangement basis and paid under the ‘Self Finance Scheme’ perform duties different from those engaged against gazetted or non-gazetted posts,” the court observed.
Invoking the constitutional doctrine of “equal pay for equal work,” the Bench said differential wages could not be sustained merely because employees were being paid from different funding sources.
“We cannot approve the action of the petitioners giving different wages to the persons for similar duties merely on the ground that the sources of payment of their wages/remuneration differ,” the court held.
Finding no legal infirmity in the earlier judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the entitlement of the vocational instructors to enhanced remuneration under the 2020 government order.
