Why higher edu needs fresh pay revision

The Directorate of Higher Education’s decision (Order No. 1/36/2017-DHE/4052, dated 01/03/2018) to revise the remuneration of faculty appointed on contract, lecture, and visiting basis in government, aided, and self-financed colleges was widely acknowledged as a necessary corrective. That revision, which followed the previous one in 2014, resulted in an average increase of approximately 40 per cent across experience categories.

While this appeared substantial on paper, its true significance lay in the fact that it merely compensated for years of stagnation rather than delivering a real improvement in living standards. The 2018 revision addressed past neglect; it did not future-proof academic livelihoods.

Eight-year gap that

can't be ignored

The timeline itself now demands renewed attention. If a revision in 2018 was justified to offset stagnation since 2014, then by the same logic, another revision is clearly due in 2026. Eight years have elapsed since the last update, a period marked by sharp and sustained increases in the cost of living. Inflation has not been abstract or gradual. It has been immediate and deeply felt—visible in higher food prices, escalating housing rents, rising fuel and transportation costs, increasing healthcare expenses, and the growing cost of education within households. Real wages, frozen at 2018 levels, have steadily eroded.

Ironically, this same period has seen a steady rise in college fees across Goa, including in aided institutions where ad-hoc faculty forms the backbone of undergraduate teaching. While institutional revenues and cost structures have been recalibrated to reflect economic realities, faculty remuneration remains anchored to outdated benchmarks.

This imbalance raises a fundamental question of fairness in the governance of higher education. When institutions adjust fees to remain viable, why is academic labour expected to absorb inflation indefinitely?

NEP has stabilised

— uncertainty has not

The implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP) initially brought academic uncertainty through revised curricula, altered credit structures, and expanded assessment responsibilities. Three years into its rollout, however, undergraduate workloads across most colleges have largely stabilised. Teaching hours, evaluation duties, mentoring responsibilities, and administrative tasks have become routine. Yet, remuneration has not been revisited, nor has there been any clarity on long-term staffing policies. Stability in academic work has not translated into stability in academic livelihoods.

Compounding stagnant pay is the chronic problem of delayed salaries. Ad-hoc teachers across Goa frequently experience irregular and unpredictable disbursement of wages. These delays arise from administrative bottlenecks at the Directorate of Higher Education, inefficiencies in fund releases, and, in some cases, delays by the managements of aided colleges.

Regardless of where responsibility lies, the impact on teachers is uniform—financial insecurity, disrupted household planning, and emotional distress. It is deeply troubling that professionals entrusted with shaping students’ futures are left uncertain about when they will receive their own earnings.

Careers on hold,

dignity deferred

Beyond pay and punctuality lies a deeper structural injustice: long-term career stagnation. There are Assistant Professors in Goa who have served on a contractual basis for decades. Some are now on the verge of retirement; others have already retired without ever being regularised. Their years of teaching, mentoring, examination work, syllabus revision, and institutional service count for little beyond monthly remuneration.

This stagnation limits not only income but also professional growth. Contract teachers are denied promotions, research incentives, sabbaticals, and leadership roles—despite workloads often matching or exceeding those of regular faculty. At retirement, they receive no pension, no gratuity, and no post-retirement security, even though their service was no less integral to institutional functioning.

A similar injustice confronts counsellors appointed in higher education institutions. Despite the growing emphasis on student mental health, well-being, and academic guidance, counsellors continue to receive a consolidated remuneration of ₹40,000 per month—irrespective of years of experience, qualifications, or workload.

This flat-rate structure ignores professional growth, rising responsibilities, and inflationary pressures. If counselling services are to be taken seriously within higher education, remuneration must reflect both expertise and experience. Pay stagnation in such critical support roles undermines the very objectives institutions claim to prioritise.

Quality education

and insecurity

The structural dependence on contractual labour contradicts the stated goals of quality enhancement and institutional stability. A higher education system built on insecure, underpaid, and professionally stagnant faculty cannot sustain excellence in the long run. The continued absence of regular recruitment only deepens this contradiction. With NEP-related transitions largely complete, the failure to advertise permanent teaching posts demands explanation. The academic community deserves transparency and a clear, time-bound recruitment roadmap.

If the state recognised the need for a pay revision in 2018 after four years of stagnation, it must acknowledge that 2026 marks a similar, and arguably more urgent, moment. Revising remuneration, ensuring timely salary disbursement, correcting long-term contractualisation, rationalising counsellors’ pay, and initiating regular recruitment are not acts of generosity. They are essential measures for restoring credibility, fairness, and sustainability in Goa’s higher education system. Perhaps, the upcoming 2027 Assembly election will finally compel the State government and the DHE to catalyse the much-needed pay hike.