There is a painful irony in asking teachers to build the future of students while leaving their own future uncertain. This is the reality faced by contractual Assistant Professors working in Government Degree Colleges across Jammu and Kashmir.
Since 2020, these teachers have repeatedly come onto the roads, submitted representations and raised their voices for better remuneration, continuity of service and job security. Yet, despite assurances from the administration and concerned authorities, a final and comprehensive solution remains awaited. Faculty members have also stated that during the election campaign, Chief Minister Omar Abdullah had assured them regarding salary enhancement and continuation of their services. Those assurances created hope, but the teachers continue to wait for concrete action.
The most striking fact is that the last major enhancement in their remuneration came in 2018, when the monthly remuneration for eligible lecturers was fixed at ₹28,000. Nearly nine years have passed since then. During this period, the cost of food, rent, transportation, healthcare and education has increased considerably, but the remuneration of these teachers remains tied to an amount fixed almost a decade ago.
What makes the situation more painful is that contractual Assistant Professors in the Cluster University system, who were also being engaged around the ₹28,000 level, subsequently received enhanced remuneration. A Cluster University of Jammu and Kashmir recruitment notification prescribed ₹35,000 per month for contractual Assistant Professors possessing PhD along with NET/SET, while PhD-only or NET/SET-qualified candidates were prescribed ₹30,000.
This raises a very serious question for contractual Assistant Professors in Government Degree Colleges: if the remuneration of similarly placed contractual Assistant Professors in the Cluster University system could be revised from the earlier ₹28,000 level to ₹35,000 for the highest-qualified category, why have college contractual lecturers remained tied to the remuneration fixed in 2018?
The disparity becomes even more striking when we look at the position of permanent Assistant Professors in Government Degree Colleges. Permanent faculty members progress through prescribed career-advancement and time-bound promotion mechanisms, with many eventually becoming Associate Professors and moving into substantially higher salary levels.
There is nothing wrong with permanent faculty receiving promotions and better salaries. They deserve their career progression. The concern is that contractual teachers working in the same higher-education system, many with PhDs, NET, SET and other advanced qualifications, have remained financially stagnant for years.
The issue is therefore not simply about ₹28,000 or ₹35,000. It is about a system in which one category of teachers has been allowed professional and financial progression while another category has remained frozen for nearly nine years.
Many of these teachers possess PhDs, NET, SET, JRF and other advanced qualifications. They teach, evaluate students, mentor them and contribute to the functioning of higher education institutions. Yet their professional lives remain uncertain from one academic session to another.
The most painful aspect is the passage of time. Many teachers have sacrificed their youth and valuable years to the Higher Education Department. They could have pursued other careers, but instead they remained in classrooms, educating successive generations of students. Some have now become age-barred for alternative government employment opportunities. The years they gave to teaching cannot simply be returned.
The issue becomes even more significant when remuneration in other sectors is being reconsidered. The recent debate over the stipend of MBBS and BDS interns is one example. Their stipend has remained at ₹12,300, while a demand for ₹30,000 has been raised and the government has been examining the matter; an earlier recommendation had proposed ₹25,000.
This comparison is not intended to place teachers and medical interns against each other. Both serve society in different ways. Rather, it raises a simple question: if remuneration can be reviewed when circumstances change, why should the remuneration of highly qualified contractual teachers remain frozen for years?
These teachers are not asking for charity. They are asking for fair remuneration, continuity, dignity and a transparent long-term policy.
A teacher who has spent years teaching students should not be forced to live permanently between hope and uncertainty. The government may have financial and administrative considerations, but the human cost of prolonged insecurity must also be recognised.
These teachers taught their students to dream about a better future. Many of them sacrificed their own prime years while doing so.
They deserve more than another assurance. They deserve a decision.
The teachers who gave their youth to the classroom should not be left without a future of their own.
Paryazdot11@gmail.com