The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted major relief to two long-term contractual assistant professors of Punjab University, directing the institution to regularize their services within six weeks. The ruling highlights important legal principles relating to contractual employment in government institutions.
In an order issued on November 6, Justice Jagmohan Bansal held that although temporary contracts may be permissible when necessary, continuing contractual labor indefinitely without regulation amounts to exploitation.
“The rampant abuse of temporary employment contracts… reflects a broader systemic issue that negatively impacts workers’ rights and job security. Government institutions, charged with upholding fairness and justice, bear a greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative practices,” the ruling said.
The court stressed that employees like the petitioners, who were appointed to prohibited positions through appropriate competitive processes and had worked flawlessly for more than 12 years, could not be denied legal settlement simply because their initial appointments were contractual.
The judgment cited the Supreme Court’s binding precedent in Jago v. Union of India (2024), observing: “The appellants’ long and uninterrupted service, extending to over ten years, cannot be overlooked by merely describing their initial appointments as contractual… Their continued contributions, coupled with the absence of any adverse record, call for fair treatment and regulation of their services.”
The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Professors (Commerce and Computer Science) in 2012 on temporary contracts after the recruitment announced by the University of Punjab. Despite meeting the qualifications set by the University Grants Commission and performing duties without interruption or misconduct, the university repeatedly renewed their annual contracts without granting them permanent status. The university also issued new job advertisements, which led to petitions being filed for settlement.
Justice Bansal found no illegality in their appointments because the selections involved interviews and were against prohibited positions. The court rejected the university’s argument that accepting the contract extension negates the organization’s claims. “The appointments are not illegal, but potentially irregular, followed by continuous service for long periods, requiring a just and humane solution,” the ruling explained.
Story continues below this ad
The court stated that “merely because an employee continues under the cover of a court order, he will not be entitled to the right to be accommodated…but where the appointments are not illegal and the employees are serving continuously, the need for settlement becomes paramount.”
The court differentiated between the petitioners’ case and the “backdoor entry” issue criticized in the 2006 Uma Devi judgment, and made it clear that misuse of the judgment to deprive long-term employees of their rights was “unfortunate”.
The ruling directed the University of the Punjab to regularize the recruitment of the petitioners within six weeks, failing which their recruitment will be deemed to be regularized with seniority and all attendant benefits from that date. The court also suggested that the university review similar claims of other long-serving contract teachers to avoid repeat lawsuits.
(Tags for translation)Punjab and Haryana High Court
