Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Continuity of Service to Temporary Professor Beyond Superannuation; Directs Payment of Salary for Period Actually Worked

Case Name: Dr. Mahendra Kumar Chhabra v. Panjab University and Others
Date of Judgment: 04 December 2025
Citation: CWP-10209-2024
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a temporary teacher is not entitled to parity with regular teachers for continuation in service beyond the age of superannuation merely on the basis of interim orders passed in favour of regular faculty. However, the Court ruled that where a temporary teacher was permitted to work beyond the age of superannuation, salary for the period actually worked cannot be denied. Claims relating to gratuity and leave encashment were left open due to absence of pleadings.

Summary: The petitioner, a temporary Assistant Professor at Panjab University, sought continuation in service up to the age of sixty-five years by invoking interim orders passed in favour of regular teachers in pending LPAs. The University opposed the claim, asserting that the petitioner was appointed purely on a temporary basis and that the benefit of extension granted to regular teachers could not be extended to him.

The High Court accepted the distinction between regular and temporary appointments and held that the petitioner had no enforceable right to continue in service beyond the prescribed age of superannuation applicable to temporary teachers. The Court noted that interim protection granted earlier was rightly vacated as there was no parity of status between the petitioner and regular faculty members.

At the same time, the Court emphasised that since the petitioner was allowed to work for a period beyond the age of superannuation, denial of salary for the period actually worked would be unjustified. The Court clarified that the petitioner was neither bound by the condition imposed on regular teachers to refund salary nor disentitled to wages for work already rendered. As the writ petition did not contain pleadings relating to gratuity and leave encashment, the Court declined to issue directions on those aspects, leaving the petitioner free to pursue appropriate remedies.

Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to release salary to the petitioner for the period he actually worked beyond the age of superannuation. The claim for continuity of service was rejected. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to seek remedies in accordance with law regarding gratuity and leave encashment.