JUDGMENT : 1. This Writ Appeal assails the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.32364 of 2017, whereby the Writ Petition filed by respondent No.1 herein (writ petitioner) was allowed, directing the appellants herein to grant the writ petitioner the pay scale of an Associate Professor under the UGC Pay Scales of 2006 with subsequent revision along with arrears. 2. Heard Sri A.P.Suresh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri P.V.Ramana, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the record. Factual Matrix (in brief) 3. The factual background, necessary for the adjudication of this appeal, is as follows: i) Respondent No.1 herein/writ petitioner (hereafter "the petitioner") applied for the post of Director in response to an advertisement in the Hindu Daily dated 22.08.2006 (Ex.P-1). However, he was appointed as Coordinator, 21 st Century Gurukulams under the Consortium of Institutions of Higher Learning (hereafter “CIHL”), vide proceedings dated 20.01.2007. His appointment was on a consolidated salary which is equivalent to the starting pay of a Lecturer in the UGC 1996 scales of pay (Ex.P-2). The relevant portion of the order of appointment dated 20.01.2007 is extracted as under: In pursuance of orders under reference cited, Sri B.N.V. Satyanarayana, Vice-Principal Anniebesant PG College, Khammam is appointed as Co-ordinator, 21st Century Gurukulatos, on a consolidated salary which is equivalent to the starting pay of a lecturer in the UGC 1996 scales of pay (DP merged Rs.8000-16000). Nature of works, period of appointment etc., will be decided by the Governing Council of CIHL The appointment shall come into force from the date of reporting to the duty. ii) The Governing Council of CIHL, as per the minutes of the meeting on 08.03.2007 (Ex.P-3), ratified the following: 10. Ratifications: The following issues have been ratified by the members of governing council of CIHL: a. A consolidate amount of Rs.23,000 (Twenty three thousands) will be paid as monthly salary to the Directors apart from free accommodation and boarding. (The above salary is fixed to keep parity with Associate Professor in the UGC-1996 scales of pay (D A merged) HRA is not included since accommodation is provided). b. A consolidated amount of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.8000/- and Rs.4000/- will be paid to Associate IT Mentor, Assistant IT Mentor and Teaching IT Mentor respectively. C. Mr BNV Satyanarayana is appointed as Coordinator of 21th Century Gurukulam. b. A consolidated amount of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.8000/- and Rs.4000/- will be paid to Associate IT Mentor, Assistant IT Mentor and Teaching IT Mentor respectively. C. Mr BNV Satyanarayana is appointed as Coordinator of 21th Century Gurukulam. He will be paid salary on par with the Directors of Gurukulam. d. Mr Praveen, Principal Mentor of IIIT, has been appointed as Director academic for 21th Century Gurukulam to advice and assist the Chairman of Consortium of Institutions of Higher Learning in day to day functioning of the gurukulam. He will continue to draw salary and other perks from the parent institution (IIIT) c. An allowance of Rs.500/- will be paid to 'Resident Mentors' who perform duties on Public Holidays, and Sundays at Gurukulams Centre. As seen from the above, the said meeting held on 08.03.2007 ratified that the petitioner would be paid a salary on par with the Directors of the Gurukulams, which was fixed at Rs.23,000/- (later noted that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid since January, 2007 in the meeting on 29.02.2012), a sum intended to be in parity with the pay of an Associate Professor under UGC 1996 scales. It was also stated that Directors were provided free accommodation and boarding in lieu of HRA. iii) Subsequently, the Governing Council as per the minutes of its meeting on 29.02.2012 ratified the following: 11. The request of Dr. B.N.V. satyanarayana, Co-ordinator, 214 CG to enhance his monthly salary as per UGC-RSP 2006 was put to discussion by the Chairman. ***** The members noted that Dr. B.N.V. Satyanarayana is being paid a consolidated amount of Rs25,000/- p.m. for the last five years since Jan 2007. It was noted that the amount paid to him was in accordance with the Ratification item in the Governing Council meeting of CIHL held on 08-03-2007 and the Note orders of the Chairman dt. 13-03-2007. It was mentioned therein that his salary was fixed keeping in view of the UGC-1996 Associate Professor's scale of pay. ***** It is further resolved that the actual amount to be paid to him (fixed p.m.) may be decided by the Chairman taking the UGC-2006 Associate Professor's scale of pay as base, however, without considering AGP and other allowances. 13-03-2007. It was mentioned therein that his salary was fixed keeping in view of the UGC-1996 Associate Professor's scale of pay. ***** It is further resolved that the actual amount to be paid to him (fixed p.m.) may be decided by the Chairman taking the UGC-2006 Associate Professor's scale of pay as base, however, without considering AGP and other allowances. As seen from the above, it was resolved in the said meeting dated 29.02.2012 to increase the consolidated salary of the petitioner, with effect from 01.03.2012, with the actual amount to be decided by the Chairman "taking the UGC-2006 Associate Professor's scale of pay as base, however, without considering the Academic Grade Pay (AGP) and other allowances". Pursuant to the said resolution dated 29.02.2012, the Chairman fixed the consolidated salary of the petitioner at Rs. 37,000/- per month vide proceedings dated 17.05.2012 (Ex.P-5). iv) The petitioner made numerous representations claiming that since he was not provided free accommodation, he was entitled to the full monetary equivalent and he sought full pay parity with an Associate Professor, including HRA and other allowances. v) The CIHL became defunct around the year 2011, but the petitioner continued to work, and his services were utilized by the Telangana State Council of Higher Education (TSCHE) for other duties, such as In-charge of the Right to Information (RTI) Cell, till his ‘superannuation’ on 30.11.2018. vi) The learned Single Judge while allowing the Writ Petition, held that the petitioner was entitled to the full pay scale of an Associate Professor under UGC 2006 and its 2016 revision on the ground that the resolutions of the CIHL Governing Council were binding and that the act of relieving the petitioner on ‘superannuation’ strengthened the petitioner’s case for being treated equally on par with a regular employee. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants raised the following contentions: 4.1 That the petitioner was engaged on a purely contractual and temporary basis of work. His initial and subsequent appointments were against no sanctioned post. The mere use of the phrase "equivalent to a UGC scale” was only for the purpose of determining a consolidated remuneration and did not confer upon the petitioner the status, duties, or rights of a Government servant or a regular UGC-scale employee. 4.2 In the year 2011, the very organization-CIHL, for which the petitioner was appointed, became defunct and the post of Co-ordinator, stood abolished. 4.2 In the year 2011, the very organization-CIHL, for which the petitioner was appointed, became defunct and the post of Co-ordinator, stood abolished. His subsequent employment by TSCHE was merely short term, contractual arrangement without any creation of a regular post or financial liability on TSCHE. 4.3. The learned Single Judge has misapplied the equal pay for equal work principle as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 . The petitioner's role as a Co-ordinator and later as In-charge of the RTI Cell of TSCHE was wholly distinct in nature, responsibility, and duties from that of an Associate Professor in a University. Thus, the said doctrine of equal pay for equal work would apply only where the duties and responsibilities are similar, which is not the case here. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants, further contended that the learned Single Judge adopted an incorrect interpretation of resolution(s) of the CIHL Governing Council, particularly, the Resolution dated 29.02.2012, which explicitly stated that the UGC-2006 scale was to be taken as a "base" without considering AGP and other allowances. The Chairman implemented the same by fixing a consolidated amount of Rs.37,000/-. The learned Single Judge's direction to grant the full scale, including AGP and allowances together with revisions, runs contrary to the explicit terms of the very resolution relied upon. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants, referring to the relieving letter dated 30.11.2018 issued to the petitioner upon his attaining 58 years of age, wherein he was requested to hand over complete charge of his post with effect from the afternoon of the same day, contended that the learned Single Judge has erroneously inferred that mere use of the expression ‘superannuation’ in the reliving letter would imply that the petitioner was a regular employee; and the act of relieving the petitioner from service upon his attaining the age of 58 years, has to be construed as an admission that the petitioner was a regular employee. According to the learned counsel for appellants, the learned Single Judge failed to notice that it was merely an administrative measure to terminate the petitioner’s long-standing contractual engagement. 7. According to the learned counsel for appellants, the learned Single Judge failed to notice that it was merely an administrative measure to terminate the petitioner’s long-standing contractual engagement. 7. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner relied on the resolutions passed by the Governing Council, the highest body of the CIHL, which promised pay parity of the coordinators with Directors, who in turn were given pay parity with Associate Professors in the UGC Scales. The learned counsel for petitioner contended that the appellants, having availed the benefit of the writ petitioner’s services for over a decade, cannot resile from this promise of pay parity with Associate Professors in UGC Scales. It was contended that while the appointment was termed "contractual", the nature of the petitioner’s longstanding continuous service and the fact that the petitioner was even assigned additional responsibilities of the RTI Cell of TSCHE demonstrate that he was treated as a permanent employee; and the act of relieving him on attaining the age of superannuation confirms the writ petitioner’s de facto status as a regular employee. It is also contended that the Resolution dated 08.03.2007 entitled the petitioner to pay on par with an Associate Professor in the UGC scales. That, the subsequent resolution dated 29.02.2012 did not negate this entitlement, but has merely made as a step towards its implementation. Denying the petitioner HRA and DA while not providing free accommodation, which was provided to the Directors, was contended to be discriminatory. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the responsibilities of coordinating multiple Gurukulams were at least as onerous as those of an Associate Professor, if not more. Therefore, the principle of equal pay for equal work was rightly invoked by the learned Single Judge. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, contending that it does not suffer from any infirmity either in law or on facts. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the material on record and applied the settled legal principles, and therefore, the order of learned Single Judge warrants no interference in this appeal. 10. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged. Analysis and Reasons: 11. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the material on record and applied the settled legal principles, and therefore, the order of learned Single Judge warrants no interference in this appeal. 10. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged. Analysis and Reasons: 11. After a thorough consideration of the pleadings, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and the submissions advanced, we find substantial force in the contentions raised by the appellants: 1. The Fundamental Distinction: Contractual Consolidated Pay vs. Regular Scale: It is to be noted that the foundational document is the appointment order dated 20.01.2007, which unambiguously provides for a "consolidated salary." In our view, the use of the phrase "equivalent to the starting pay of a lecturer", was merely a method to quantify this consolidated amount. It cannot be construed to have incorporated the entire UGC scheme of pay, increments, allowances, and permanency into the petitioner’s contract. It is settled law that a person appointed on a contractual basis against no sanctioned post, cannot claim the regular pay scale as a matter of right. The terms of his appointment are governed by his contract. 2. The Correct Construction of the Governing Council Resolutions: The salutary principle that a document must be read in its entirety to ascertain the true intent applies here. The resolution dated 08.03.2007 when read in its entirety fixed a specific consolidated amount for the Directors (and by extension to the petitioner) "to keep parity with Associate Professor." Crucially, it also noted that "HRA is not included since accommodation is provided", which demonstrates that the Council was fixing a comprehensive, all-inclusive package, not adopting the entire UGC pay structure. The subsequent resolution dated 29.02.2012 is even more specific as it authorizes the Chairman to fix the pay "taking the UGC-2006 Associate Professor's scale of pay as base, however, without considering AGP and other allowances" (Emphasis supplied). Further, the learned Single Judge's direction to grant the full pay scale, including Academic Grade Pay (AGP) and allowances together with revisions, directly contravenes the content and the intent of the resolution. The settled position is that the writ Court cannot rewrite the contract between the parties. 3. Misapplication of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" principle: The learned Single Judge's reliance on the case of Jagjit Singh ’s case (supra) is misplaced. The settled position is that the writ Court cannot rewrite the contract between the parties. 3. Misapplication of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" principle: The learned Single Judge's reliance on the case of Jagjit Singh ’s case (supra) is misplaced. The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the duties and responsibilities of a Co-ordinator for Gurukulams (an administrative and coordination role) were similar or identical to the core academic, teaching, and research responsibilities of an Associate Professor in a university. The nature of the work was "entirely distinct," as rightly argued by the appellants. It is to be noted that the principle of equal pay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine; it is contingent upon a clear showing of functional parity, which is absent in the present case. 4. The Fallacy of the "Superannuation" argument: It will not be out of the context to note that the petitioner was engaged by CIHL, (a society) and the act of TSCHE in relieving the petitioner upon attaining the age of 58 years was a logical step to bring closure of his long-standing engagement. Further, the relieving letter dated 30.11.2018 was an administrative convenience, and does not constitute a legal recognition of the petitioner’s status as a Government servant, who was entitled to superannuation benefits under the Fundamental Rules. Thus, it would be wholly incorrect to draw a legal inference of regularization from this administrative act of the petitioner. 5. The legal status of CIHL and TSCHE: It is pertinent to note that CIHL was a distinct registered society. While TSCHE exercised supervisory control, the Petitioner's employer was CIHL. Upon CIHL becoming defunct, the Petitioner's contractual engagement lost its primary foundation. The petitioner’s subsequent work for TSCHE did not constitute a fresh appointment or absorption, but was a purely informal arrangement, as correctly contended by the appellants. In this regard, the TSCHE being a supervisory body cannot be burdened with the financial liability of paying a UGC scale for a post that never existed within its sanctioned establishment. Conclusion 12. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from a fundamental error in failing to appreciate the contractual nature of the Petitioner's appointment and the specific, limited terms of the Governing Council's resolutions. Conclusion 12. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from a fundamental error in failing to appreciate the contractual nature of the Petitioner's appointment and the specific, limited terms of the Governing Council's resolutions. The direction to grant the petitioner the full UGC pay scale of an Associate Professor together with revision, contrary to the explicit stipulation in the resolution of the Governing Council of CIHL dated 20.01.2007, 08.03.2007 and 29.02.2012, is unsustainable in law. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.32364 of 2017 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.