The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed an appeal filed by the Union Territory administration challenging a Single Judge's order that granted enhanced remuneration to Vocational Instructors working on academic arrangement in Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs).
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar held that instructors performing the same duties cannot be paid differently merely because their remuneration comes from different funding sources.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose after several Vocational Instructors engaged on an academic arrangement basis in various ITIs across Jammu and Kashmir sought the benefit of Government Order No. 34-JK(DSD) of 2020, which increased remuneration for academic arrangement staff in ITIs and Polytechnics.
The instructors had initially been engaged between 2009 and 2011 under the Self Finance Scheme. Over the years, they received revisions in honorarium through government orders issued in 2012 and 2017.
However, when the government enhanced remuneration in October 2020, the benefit was denied to these instructors. Authorities argued that the order applied only to candidates engaged against gazetted and non-gazetted vacant posts, not to those working under the Self Finance Scheme.
Aggrieved by the decision, the instructors approached the High Court through a writ petition.
The division bench agreed with the findings of the Single Judge and found no error in the earlier ruling.
The Bench noted that a plain reading of the 2020 government order showed that enhanced remuneration was intended for all candidates engaged on academic arrangement basis in ITIs and Polytechnics.
Rejecting the government's interpretation, the court observed that the reference to gazetted and non-gazetted posts in the order was only meant to determine different remuneration slabs based on 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 observed.
The judges further emphasized that the source from which remuneration is paid cannot justify unequal wages when employees perform the same work.
Referring to the constitutional principle of equal pay for equal work, the court stated that Vocational Instructors engaged under the Self Finance Scheme were performing duties similar to those carried out by instructors engaged against regular posts.
The Bench remarked,
“We cannot approve the action of the petitioners giving different wages to the persons for the similar duties merely on the ground that the sources of payment of their wages/remuneration differ.”
Finding no legal infirmity in the Single Judge's judgment, the Division Bench upheld the order granting enhanced remuneration to the instructors under Government Order No. 34-JK(DSD) of 2020.
The court concluded that the respondents were entitled to the revised remuneration and dismissed the Union Territory's appeal.
Case Details
Case Title: Union Territory of J&K & Ors. v. Fayaz Ahmad Bhat & Ors.
Case Number: LPA No. 268/2025 in WP(C) No. 208/2021
Judges: Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar
Decision Date: 18 May 2026
