Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Reinstatement of Senior Librarian Retired at 62; Holds He Was Part of Teaching Faculty and Entitled to Superannuation at 65

Case Name: Manmohan Singh vs. Union of India & Others
Date of Judgment: 02 December 2025
Citation: CWP-23237-2019
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the petitioner, serving as Senior Librarian at the National Institute of Technical Teachers’ Training and Research, Chandigarh, was part of the teaching faculty for all service-related purposes and was therefore entitled to continue in service until 65 years. The Court quashed the action retiring him at 62, ruling that long-standing institutional treatment of the post as faculty could not be undone by later executive instructions lacking retrospective effect.

Summary: The petitioner joined the National Institute of Technical Teachers’ Training and Research, Chandigarh in 1985 and served as Chief Librarian/Senior Librarian. For decades, the Institute and its Board of Governors treated the post as part of the teaching establishment, extending to him the same pay scales, service conditions and privileges as faculty members. In 2000, the Institute formally increased his age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years in parity with teaching faculty, reaffirming this parity.

Although the Ministry issued a communication in 2008 distinguishing teaching and non-teaching posts, the Institute continued to integrate the Senior Librarian’s role within its academic framework. The Court found that the petitioner regularly discharged instructional and training-related responsibilities, participated in academic programmes, and was structurally embedded in the teaching ecosystem of the Institute. It held that the subsequent attempt to classify him as non-teaching contradicted decades of consistent institutional conduct.

The Court applied the doctrine of legitimate expectation, observing that the petitioner had planned his service career on the basis of repeated and long-standing assurances that his post was part of the teaching cadre. The respondents’ argument on delay was rejected as the cause of action arose only when the Institute sought to retire him at 62 in 2019.

Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The Court held that the petitioner must be deemed to have continued in service until 65 years of age and directed grant of all consequential benefits arising from that entitlement.