Guest Lecturers Can't Claim Parity With Regular Employees For Additional Casual Leave: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld an order of the Commissioner of the Higher Education Department rejecting Guest Lecturers' representation seeking an additional 7 days' casual leave, which is extended to regular employees, observing that guest lecturers are engaged on a contingent basis and therefore are disentitled to benefits meant for regular employees. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 311]The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal observed:"It is to be noted that Guest Lecturers are engaged on a temporary/contingent basis and governed by distinct terms, disentitling them from claiming benefits meant for regular government employees". Emphasizing that writ of mandamus can only be issued to enforce a pre-existing right but cannot be issued to create a new legal right, the bench held,"the petitioner has failed to establish any enforceable legal or statutory right entitling them to claim the relief. In the absence of any provision conferring the benefit of seven days' additional Casual Leave upon Guest Faculty at par with the regular government employees, no writ of mandamus can be issued". The petitioners, who are working as Guest Lecturers, have approached the High Court challenging the order of the Commission of the Higher Education Department (Respondent 3) wherein their claim seeking 7 additional casual leaves in terms of the circular issued by the General Administration Department of July 5, 2023, was rejected. Per the petitioner, GAD has issued a circular granting the benefit of 7 additional casual leaves to women employees in addition to the already granted 13 days' casual leave. Based on this circular, the petitioners had submitted a representation before the competent authority, but no decision was made. Therefore, the petitioners approached the High Court, which was disposed of with directions to the Commissioner to consider and decide the representation. The petitioners claimed that despite the Court's order, the Commission did not take any decision and therefore the petitioners filed a contempt petition to initiate proceedings. During the pendency of the contempt petition, the Commissioner passed an order on October 22, 2014, rejecting the petitioners' claim on the ground that the Guest Lecturers are governed by another circular of October 5, 2023, under which they are entitled to 13 days' casual leave and three optional leaves. The Commissioner also recorded that since the petitioners are not regular government employees, they are not entitled to the benefit of 7 additional casual leaves. Therefore, the contempt petition was also closed. Aggrieved by the rejection order, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. The counsel for the petitioners argued that the respondents have acted contrary to the circular of July 5, 2023 and that the circular of October 5, 2023 was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The counsel for the State argued that the impugned order was passed in accordance with applicable policy and that the Commissioner had decided the petitioner's representation by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The court noted that the order of the Commissioner was passed after duly considering the petitioner's claims and that it was "just and proper". The court noted that the petitioners are engaged as Guest Lecturers and therefore governed by the policy applicable to guest faculty, and therefore the benefit of 7 additional casual leave is not available to them. The court noted that the petitioners have failed to establish any enforceable legal or statutory right entitling them to claim the benefit. The bench observed that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to create a new legal right, referring to the cases of Director of Settlements v MR Apparao [2002 4 SCC 638] and State of Haryana v Charanjit Singh [2006 9 SCC 321]. Thus, the petition was dismissed. Case Title: Dr Aarti Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-39861-2024Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 311For Petitioners: Advocate Satya Prakash Mishra For State: Government Advocate Anubhav Jain Click here to read/download the Order

Guest Lecturers Can't Claim Parity With Regular Employees For Additional Casual Leave: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

Guest Lecturers Can't Claim Parity With Regular Employees For Additional Casual Leave: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers