Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5310
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Ramesh Singh Thakur, Judicial Member, Anjali Bhawra, Administrative Member
Annie – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory, Chandigarh – Respondent
OA No. 060/245/2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sh. R.K. Sharma
For the Respondents: Sh. Arvind Moudgil, Ms. Jyotika Panesar
Contractual Assistant Professors entitled to continue till regular recruitment, minimum pay scale + DA, vacation salary, maternity leave; discriminatory fixed-term clauses unconstitutional; no replacement by fresh contract hires; 'first come, last go' principle applies.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Service law - Contractual Assistant Professors - Entitlement to service benefits - Duly qualified contractual appointees performing identical duties as regular faculty entitled to continue in service till regular recruitment through UPSC/deputation; cannot be replaced by fresh contractual/adhoc appointees; entitled to minimum pay scale + DA, vacation salary, maternity leave (for females with less than two children as per VIth CPC), preparatory holidays - Discriminatory clauses in appointment letters limiting tenure to 8 months, denying vacation salary, restraining court approach held unconstitutional and quashed - Principles of 'first come, last go' and subject-wise seniority to be followed - Historical shift from ad hoc to contractual engagements to deny benefits rejected; reliance on precedents directing continuity for student interest and teacher rapport. (Paras 12, 13, 14)
(B) Constitutional law - Article 14 - Equality and non-arbitrariness - Arbitrary replacement of experienced contractual faculty in absence of regular appointments violates equality; affects academic continuity and student interests - Denial of settled benefits despite judicial precedents amounts to contempt. (Paras 4, 5, 6, 12)
Facts of the case:
Contractual Assistant Professors (Group B), appointed in 2017-18 session through centralized selection for various government colleges due to delays in UPSC regular recruitment, sought continuation till regular filling of posts, minimum pay scale + DA from appointment date, vacation salary, maternity leave, quashing of exploitative terms; previously extended for 2018-19 with some benefits but faced termination threat for 2019-20 despite status quo order; respondents claimed prematurity as no decision taken and regular process ongoing (39 requisitions sent to UPSC in 2013, 25 recommendations received, 8 appointed).
Findings of Court:
Applicants to continue in service on terms applicable to regular Assistant Professors till regular appointments; extend minimum pay scale + DA, vacation salary, maternity leave, other entitlements within 8 weeks; no costs.
Issues: Entitlement of contractual faculty to service continuity and benefits till regular recruitment; validity of fixed tenure, no-vacation salary clauses; applicability of prior judgments on pay, benefits, non-replacement.
Ratio Decidendi: Contractual faculty duly selected and performing regular duties entitled to parity in continuity and benefits till regular posts filled; unconstitutional clauses quashed; subject-wise seniority and 'first come, last go' mandated; precedents binding, ensuring non-discrimination and academic continuity.
Result: Original Application allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. reliefs sought for service continuity and benefits. (Para 1) |
| 2. applicants' qualifications, appointments, and denied benefits. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. tribunal status quo and respondents' reply. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. merit found in applicants' claims per precedents. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. continuation and benefits till regular appointments. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. no order as to costs. (Para 15) |
ORDER
Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):
1. This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the A.T. Act, 1985 seeking following relief(s):
(i) Direct the respondents to allow the applicants to continue them in service till the posts are filled on regular basis by extending the benefit of judgment/orders passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal in Kirshan Kumar versus Chandigarh Admn. and others reported as 2004(3) SLJ 229, Sonika Kohli and others versus U.T. Chandigarh and others 2004(3) SLJ (CAT) 54 and Vandana Jain and others versus Union of India and others O.A. No. 33/CH/2011 decided on 31.03.2011 and to allow them the benefit of minimum of the pay scale plus DA as increase from time to time from the date of their appointment , benefit of vacation salary, salary for preparatory holidays, maternity leave wherever applicable qua the female applicants as granted in the aforementioned cases including all other benefits granted therein including non-replacement by the contractual or adhoc appointees.
(ii) Declare that the conditions of appointment of the applicants on fixed term, restraining from claiming the legal benefit through the court of law including extension etc. and no salary for vacations are illegal and unconstitutional and are liable to be quashed to that extent and that they are entitled to continue in service till the posts are filled on regular basis and they are entitled to salary for vacation period including maternity leave for female appointments wherever applicable etc. etc.
2. The applicants are all duly qualified individuals possessing postgraduate degrees, NET qualification, and, in many cases, doctoral degrees, making them fully eligible for appointment as Assistant Professors in the College Cadre of the Union Territory of Chandigarh. These posts, falling under the unified cadre of Government Arts, Science, and Home Science Colleges, are governed by the Government Arts and Science Colleges, Chandigarh (Assistant Professor Group ‘A’ Post) Recruitment Rules, 2011 Given the delays in regular appointments—particularly when involving the UPSC—the Administration has historically resorted to temporary or contractual engagements to ensure continuity in academic instruction and to manage the increasing teacher-student ratio.
3. Historically, the practice of engaging college lecturers on an ad hoc basis in Punjab, Haryana, and U.T. Chandigarh involved relieving them before vacations and re-engaging them afterward to deny vacation salary. This led to a series of litigations in which the Hon’ble Courts intervened to protect the rights of such appointees, granting them continuity and service benefits. In response, the Administration shifted to a system of contractual appointments, which came with exploitative terms—such as fixed tenure, denial of vacation and maternity benefits, and undertakings not to approach courts—leading to further legal challenges.
4. In July 2017, the Administration advertised 37 posts of Assistant Professor (later increased to 46), and all the applicants were duly selected through a centralized selection process and appointed for the 2017–18 session on a fixed salary basis. Despite performing duties at par with regular faculty, they were denied benefits such as vacation salary and maternity leave. Upon nearing the end of the 2017–18 session, applicants submitted representations seeking extension and the benefit of judicial precedents, particularly relying on the judgment in Vandana Jain and Others v. Union of India and Others, O.A. No. 33/CH/2011, decided on 31.03.2011 by the Central Adm
