Teacher Posted On Research Duty Not Entitled To Continue Service Till End Of Academic Session After Retirement: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that continuation in service till the end of the academic session after superannuation is a concession and not a vested statutory right, and can be claimed only by a teacher who is actually engaged in regular teaching. It held that an Associate Professor of an agricultural university who had been posted as In-charge of a research station could not claim...
The Allahabad High Court has held that continuation in service till the end of the academic session after superannuation is a concession and not a vested statutory right, and can be claimed only by a teacher who is actually engaged in regular teaching.
It held that an Associate Professor of an agricultural university who had been posted as In-charge of a research station could not claim the benefit merely because he continued to hold a substantive teaching post and drew his salary against it.
Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held,
“The legislative intent, the applicable Statutes and the executive policy, when harmoniously construed, unmistakably demonstrate that the extension till the end of the academic session is conceived solely to subserve academic continuity and to protect the interest of students from disruption in the midst of an ongoing session. The object is institutional and not individual. It is neither a reward for long service nor an incident of the substantive appointment. The benefit is conditioned upon the existence of circumstances which justify its grant, namely, that the incumbent is actually engaged in regular teaching so that discontinuance midway through the academic session would adversely affect the instructional process.”
Petitioner was appointed on 9th December 2017 as Associate Professor (Agronomy) at Banda University of Agriculture and Technology, Banda, which has no statutes of its own and has adopted those of Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur. He taught undergraduate and postgraduate courses between December 2017 and October 2019.
By order dated 21st October 2019, he was transferred to what is now the Millets Research Station, Gursarai, Jhansi, and given charge of the centre while continuing to hold the post of Associate Professor.
Petitioner, whose date of birth is 10th July 1964, was informed by communication dated 30th June 2026 that he would retire with effect from 31st July 2026. His representations for continuation till the close of the session having gone unanswered, he filed Writ Petition No. 10051 of 2026, which was disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to decide the claim within 72 hours. The claim was rejected by order dated 15th July 2026, and both orders were challenged in the present petition.
The Court observed that the controversy was not about the age of retirement but about continuation beyond it, which could not be equated with the normal tenure of service or treated as an indefeasible statutory entitlement. It observed that petitioner had not shown that he was entrusted with regular classroom teaching, that he handled undergraduate or postgraduate courses in the session immediately preceding his retirement, or that his retirement would interrupt any teaching programme.
“Mere continuance on the substantive cadre of Associate Professor or the drawing of salary against that post cannot, by itself, satisfy the essential requirement underlying the grant of session benefit.”
Section 2(k) of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1958 defines a teacher as a person appointed or recognised by the University for imparting instruction or for conducting and guiding research or extension programmes, and includes a person declared to be a teacher by the Statutes.
The Government Order dated 14.06.2022 provides that teachers appointed under the Act who fall within that definition and are appointed in accordance with Section 28-d of Chapter XII read with Clause 4-D of Chapter XIII of the Statutes may continue in service till the age of 62 years, and are further entitled to extension of service till the end of the academic session, i.e., up to 30th June following superannuation.
Rejecting the argument that his status as a teacher under Section 2(k) of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1958 was by itself enough, the Court held,
“The statutory definition may determine the nature of his appointment; however, it does not ipso facto confer an unconditional right to continuation beyond the age of superannuation. A distinction has to be maintained between the status of a teacher and the eligibility to claim an exceptional concession after retirement. To obliterate such distinction would render otiose the very object behind the policy governing continuation till the end of the academic session.”
The Court relied on Sri Ram Singar Singh v. State of U.P. and Others, wherein Allahabad High Court held the session benefit to be a concession dependent on fulfilment of prescribed conditions.
Further reliance was placed on the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Sumitra Dhulia v. Director of Education and Others, which laid down twin conditions for its grant, namely that the employee must be teaching regular subjects and that the academic session must remain incomplete, the absence of either being fatal to the claim. It noted that the Full Bench had also held that an employee engaged primarily in research work cannot invoke the policy merely because he belongs to an educational institution.
Noting that the competent authority had recorded that petitioner was not engaged in regular teaching, the Court held that no material of unimpeachable character had been produced to show that this finding was perverse, mala fide, arbitrary or patently illegal, and that in writ jurisdiction it could not substitute its own opinion on such a factual assessment.
On the claim of parity, the Court held,
“Article 14 embodies a positive concept of equality and does not envisage perpetuation of benefits dehors the governing statutory framework. A claim based upon parity must necessarily rest upon complete identity of factual and legal circumstances.”
It held that petitioner had not shown that Dr. Virendra Kumar Singh was similarly placed as regards the duties actually being discharged, and in any event a benefit extended in another case could not itself be a source of legal entitlement.
Holding that the impugned orders disclosed neither jurisdictional error nor any violation of the statutory provisions governing the Agricultural University, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Dr Awadhesh Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P. and 3 others