By: Dr. Paryaz Ahmad Bhat
When Jammu and Kashmir Education Minister Sakina Itoo recently described teachers as the government’s “dignity and priority” in the Legislative Assembly, her words rightly reflected the importance of respecting those who dedicate their lives to educating the younger generation.
The Minister reportedly emphasized that the controversy surrounding the mandatory Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) for in-service teachers was not merely a question of whether experienced teachers could sit for an examination. Rather, she presented it as a question of professional dignity, respect and the emotional well-being of teachers who have spent years serving the education system. The government’s concern for the dignity of educators is welcome.
But one question naturally arises:
Does dignity belong only to one category of educators?
What about the contractual and need-based Assistant Professors who have spent a substantial portion of their youth serving the Department of Higher Education in Jammu and Kashmir? What about Ph.D. NET, SET -qualified faculty members who, despite years of teaching experience and academic qualifications, continue to receive remuneration of only ₹28,000 per month?
Their dignity matters too. Their families matter too. Their years of service matter too. And their professional future matters too. “We are not against teachers. We are asking for justice.”
The issue being raised by contractual and need-based Assistant Professors is not an attempt to oppose school teachers or to question the salary and benefits given to them. Teachers deserve respect and reasonable remuneration. Likewise, the improvement of internship remuneration for MBBS and BDS students is not something that should be opposed. Medical students and interns also deserve fair treatment.
The question is one of equal consideration and institutional fairness.
If the government can recognize the financial and professional difficulties of one section of the education or healthcare workforce, why should another group that has spent decades serving the same government remain at a remuneration level that many consider inadequate for a highly qualified academic professional? For a Ph.D., NET, SET – qualified faculty member, ₹28,000 per month is not simply a figure on a government order. It determines the ability to support a family, meet increasing living costs, plan a career and maintain professional dignity.
A question already placed before the Government
The concern regarding remuneration was formally raised in the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly by Dr. Khursheed Ahmad Sheikh, MLA Langate. The question and government reply deserve to be placed before the public because they provide an official record of the issue.
Government of Jammu and Kashmir
Higher Education Department
Civil Secretariat, J&K
Regarding: Enhancement of Remuneration
Unstarred D. No: 1/6/198, tabled by Mr. Khurshed Ahmad Sheikh (Langate):
Will the Government please state:
- a) whether it is a fact that Ph.D.-qualified contractual faculty engaged in various Degree Colleges in Jammu and Kashmir are being paid meager ₹28,000 remuneration per month as against ₹92,000 disbursed by the Government of Bihar for equivalent positions; if so, the reasons for such disparity; and;
- b) whether it intends to enhance the aforesaid remuneration and review the service conditions of such engagees to ensure a fair and dignified compensation to them; if so, when; if not; the reasons therefor?
Reply
“The Ph.D Qualified need based Faculty engaged in various Government Degree Colleges in Jammu and Kashmir are being paid remuneration @Rs.28,000/-per month in terms of the Guidelines notified by the Department vide Government Order No. 137-JK(HE) of 2024 Dated 01.03.2024.
The said guidelines are in vogue as on date, however, efforts in this regard were made by the Department regarding enhancement of the existing remuneration being paid to the need based Faculty engaged on Academic Arrangement in the various Government Degree Colleges and accordingly the case was referred to the Finance Department to bring the same at par with the remuneration being paid to the similarly situated engagees in the Universities and other Colleges in the Country in accordance with the UGC Regulations.
The Finance Department have returned the case with some observations which are under examination in the Department and after compilation of the desired information, the case file shall again be referred to the Finance Department for their concurrence in the matter to make parity in the disbursement of the remuneration. Once the concurrence of the Finance Department is received in the case, further appropriate action as required in the case shall be taken on priority with the approval of the Competent Authority.”
Sd/-
Minister Incharge Higher Education Department
Deputy Secretary to the Government
Higher Education Department
This official reply itself acknowledges that the issue of enhancement has been considered by the Higher Education Department and that the matter was referred to the Finance Department with the stated objective of bringing remuneration closer to that paid to similarly situated personnel elsewhere. The faculty members are therefore not asking for an issue to be discovered from scratch. The issue has already reached the official table of the government. What they are asking for now is a decision.
Two different standards of dignity?
The recent debate over TET has brought the concept of professional dignity into the public conversation. The Minister’s reported assertion that teachers are the government’s “dignity and priority” is significant. But it also creates an opportunity for a larger question.
If professional dignity means protecting an experienced teacher from unnecessary anxiety and insecurity, should not the same principle apply to a Ph.D., NET, SET – qualified Assistant Professor who has spent many years teaching students in government degree colleges on a modest contractual remuneration?
If long service is a reason to consider the circumstances of an in-service school teacher, should long service not also be considered when evaluating the circumstances of contractual faculty? If the emotional and social consequences of insecurity matter in one branch of education, should they not matter in another? These are not questions against schoolteachers. They are questions for the government.
Years of youth cannot be returned
For many contractual Assistant Professors, the issue is deeper than remuneration. They entered higher education teaching with academic qualifications, hopes and professional aspirations. Some have spent a considerable portion of their youth teaching successive generations of students.
They prepared lectures, evaluated students, conducted examinations, guided young people and contributed to the functioning of government degree colleges. Yet many continue to live with uncertainty regarding their professional future and financial security.
The years spent in service cannot be returned.
The youth spent in classrooms cannot be recovered.
And the sacrifices made by families cannot simply be measured through a monthly remuneration figure.
When such faculty members ask for a reasonable and respectable remuneration, they are not asking for charity. They are asking the government to recognize the value of the work they have already performed.
The question of political visibility
The debate surrounding TET has also generated another uncomfortable public question. When a policy affects a very large and visible section of the workforce, the issue naturally receives considerable public and political attention. The resolution concerning exemption from mandatory TET for certain in-service teachers is now part of that public debate.
But contractual college faculty members are also citizens, voters, teachers, researchers and members of society. Their numbers may be smaller. Their collective political visibility may be less. But their dignity cannot be measured by the size of their vote bank.
Government policy should be based on constitutional principles, rules, qualifications, service rendered and legitimate public interest—not merely on how large or politically visible a particular group is.
That is why the question being raised by contractual faculty deserves to be heard independently of electoral considerations.
We welcome every genuine improvement
There should be no misunderstanding. Contractual Assistant Professors are not against the salaries of school teachers. They are not against teachers receiving better remuneration. They are not against MBBS and BDS interns receiving improved stipends. They are not asking the government to take something away from another category. Their demand is much simpler:
Give us reasonable and respectable remuneration too. If the government recognizes the contribution of teachers, recognize the contribution of college faculty. If long service deserves consideration, consider the long service of contractual faculty. If professional dignity matters, let it apply across the education system. If mental and social well-being matter, consider the anxiety created by prolonged contractual employment and inadequate remuneration.
From “dignity” to “equal dignity”
The most important question is therefore not whether one group deserves dignity. Every group deserves dignity. The real question is whether the government can develop an education policy in which the dignity of one category does not become the invisibility of another.
Jammu and Kashmir needs committed teachers in schools and committed faculty in colleges. Both are essential to the educational future of its young people.
A teacher educating a child deserves respect. An Assistant Professor educating that child’s future generation deserves respect too. The government does not have to choose between them. It can stand with both.
The contractual and need-based Assistant Professors of government degree colleges are therefore asking for neither privilege nor favour. They are asking that their years of service, qualifications, contribution and human dignity be given due consideration.
The appeal is not: “Take from them and give to us.”
The appeal is: “If dignity is the priority, let dignity be equal.”
For a faculty member who has devoted years of youth to the classrooms of Jammu and Kashmir, ₹28,000 is not merely a remuneration figure. It is a question of recognition. It is a question of security.
And ultimately, it is a question of dignity.
If the government truly believes that teachers are its dignity and priority, then let that principle extend from the school classroom to the college lecture hall. Let there be one standard of dignity, not two.
Because the question is no longer merely:
“When will our remuneration be enhanced?”
The deeper question is:
“When will our years of service finally be valued?”
Email: paryazdot11@gmail.com