Highschool graduate teachers demand justice over pay disparity

Heramba Nath

(herambanath2222@gmail.com)

The growing demand for justice among high school graduate teachers in Assam regarding pay disparity under the Seventh Assam Pay and Productivity Pay Commission has revealed long-standing structural gaps within the State’s educational administration. What appears on the surface as a technical inconsistency in Pay Bands, Grade Pays, and fitment tables is, in reality, a deeper reflection of inequity and frustration brewing among thousands of educators. Their concern is not merely about monthly remuneration but about recognition, respect, and the fundamental fairness of the system they serve.

The core issue raised by the All Assam Secondary Graduate Teachers’ Association revolves around the widening salary gap between teachers appointed before 17 March 2017 and those recruited after that date under the Seventh Pay Commission. Although both groups share the same qualification, designation, and duties, their salaries differ drastically. Two teachers standing in the same classroom, performing identical work and sharing the same Grade Pay, receive salaries that differ by several thousands of rupees every month. This internal inequality has deeply unsettled educators, particularly because schools are institutions where fairness, equity, and justice are expected to be upheld and modelled before students.

Under the earlier Sixth Pay Commission, salary structures were intricately graded. Teachers were placed within various Grade Pays such as 5200+2100, 5600+2400, 6500+3000, 6600+3300, and several others. These distinctions reflected seniority, service length, responsibilities, and qualifications. Although not flawless, the system recognised progression and acknowledged the difference between a teacher entering service for the first time and a teacher who had dedicated years to the profession.

The Seventh Pay Commission, however, altered this long-standing structure. With the introduction of Pay Band 2 (PB-2), starting at a minimum of Rupees 14,000, earlier pay variations were erased, and only Grade Pays were retained as differentiating factors. While the intent may have been simplification, the execution produced unintended inequity. Teachers appointed before 17 March 2017 were placed at a different initial pay compared to those recruited later, even though both share the same Pay Band and Grade Pay.

The disparity becomes clearer when examining the fitment tables. A teacher appointed after 17 March 2017 with a Grade Pay of Rupees 8,700 begins with a first-stage salary of Rupees 22,700, calculated from a pre-revised basic of 5,200. Meanwhile, teachers appointed before that date with the same Grade Pay begin with Rupees 27,140, based on a pre-revised basic of 6,660. The immediate gap of Rupees 4,440 widens significantly once allowances are added, reaching around Rupees 7,370 per month. Teachers fear that when the Eighth Pay Commission is implemented, this difference may grow into an even more alarming gap of Rupees 15,000 or more.

Such disparity raises troubling questions about the integrity of public administration. How can a revised structure intended to promote equity end up penalising long-serving teachers? How can two individuals performing the same duties under the same cadre be placed at such different salary levels merely due to the date mentioned on their appointment letters? These questions strike at the moral foundation of governance.

For many teachers, the issue is not merely financial. It is emotional. A teacher who has served for fifteen or twenty years — often in remote regions, amidst infrastructural shortages, multi-grade classrooms, and demanding administrative duties — naturally expects the system to acknowledge their experience. When such teachers find that new recruits with the same Grade Pay might eventually draw salaries close to or even higher than theirs, it creates a deep sense of hurt and indignation. This emotional strain is evident in schools across Assam, where teachers sitting in the same staff room receive significantly different salaries despite sharing identical responsibilities.

Such conditions erode workplace morale and disturb the essential spirit of unity among staff members. A demotivated teacher cannot be expected to bring the same energy, commitment, and creativity to the classroom. Students, though unaware of pay structures, indirectly suffer from the reduced enthusiasm and growing frustration felt by their mentors. Over time, this imbalance may weaken the appeal of the teaching profession itself, discouraging talented youths from entering high school teaching, which already comes with heavy workloads and substantial responsibilities.

Government documents themselves confirm the structure of PB-2 and Grade Pays, but they also highlight the oversight that has entrenched the disparity. A uniform pay structure that ignores tenure and service length weakens the incentive system that encourages teachers to remain committed over the long term. Experience, institutional knowledge, and years of service cannot be equated with a beginner’s position. Ignoring this basic principle undermines the dignity of senior educators.

The association has urged the Chief Minister and the Education Minister to intervene before the Eighth Pay Commission proposals take shape. If the issue remains unresolved, the existing disparity will be permanently embedded into the system, leaving thousands of teachers disadvantaged for the rest of their careers. Teachers argue that while qualification and designation may be equal, service length cannot be ignored. A salary system must reflect experience, loyalty, and contribution, not simply the year or month of appointment.

The socio-economic reality of teachers in Assam adds another dimension to this crisis. Many educators travel long distances daily, work in under-resourced schools, shoulder election duties, census responsibilities, and administrative tasks in addition to teaching. Their workday extends far beyond school hours, often stretching into late-night preparation and evaluation. In such circumstances, fairness in remuneration becomes not only a financial duty but a moral obligation of the State.

The demand for justice from the association is a reminder that pay commissions must consider ground realities, not just technical frameworks. The Seventh Pay Commission, in its quest for uniformity, overlooked accumulated service value. This oversight reflects a broader pattern of policy disconnect visible across multiple sectors in India. Structural flaws that remain unaddressed become institutionalised, and once they solidify, even major revisions struggle to correct them.

Future pay revisions must adopt a more consultative and transparent approach. Teachers’ associations, especially those representing rural and urban pockets, must be included in discussions. Their insights are indispensable for understanding how policy changes truly affect the classroom, the school environment, and the teaching workforce.

Ultimately, the government’s response to this crisis will reflect its values and priorities. Will it treat teachers as mere administrative employees, or as custodians of the State’s future? Teachers are not seeking special privileges. They are demanding fairness within their cadre — a system that acknowledges service, respects experience, and maintains the dignity of the profession.

Rectifying the disparity is not an expenditure but an investment — an investment in motivation, stability, and the long-term health of the educational system. Teachers shape the moral and intellectual foundations of society. When they feel valued, their confidence radiates into the classroom. When they feel ignored, the classroom absorbs the consequences. The government must act with sensitivity and urgency. Every day that the disparity remains unresolved deepens mistrust and widens the emotional and professional divide. A just pay structure will restore confidence, rebuild morale, and honour the silent yet powerful role teachers play in shaping the future of Assam.