The Punjab and Haryana High Court, taking a strict stance on the treatment of contract employees, said that government and public educational institutions cannot appoint employees when needed and later dismiss them. The court clarified that institutions cannot treat employees in a ‘use and throw’ manner.
The court also said that if there is a continuous need for work in an institution, one cannot remove a contract employee and appoint another employee in their place merely by changing the name of the post.
Case also related to the Divyang category
Justice Sandeep Maudgil delivered this important verdict while hearing the petition of a woman petitioner named Rimpi. The petitioner had been working as a guest faculty in the Department of Development Studies under the Central Government since 2021. Her selection was done through a selection committee, and she had been teaching continuously since December 4, 2021. She is also related to the 48 percent Divyang category.
The petitioner stated that in the year 2023, a fresh advertisement was issued for the posts of Assistant Professor on contract, in which he also applied. However, before the selection process could be completed, the institution appointed some other contract employee and released him from service on 9 March 2024.
Work like regular teachers
The petitioner argued that he was made to perform full academic work like regular teachers, but in return he was given only a fixed salary of 52 thousand rupees per month. He alleged that the institution was engaging in exploitative behavior with contract employees.
Meanwhile, the institution told the court that the petitioner was appointed only on an 11-month contract and has no right to continue in service or to a regular appointment. The institution also said that she was not selected in the new selection process and the new appointment was made to a separate position of Assistant Professor on Contract.
The actual nature of the work is important
The High Court, dismissing the institution’s arguments, said that not just the name of the position, but the actual nature of the work should be considered. It is clear from the record that the petitioner had been performing the same teaching work earlier, and the subsequently appointed employee was also engaged to meet the same requirement.
The court said that this case appears to be about removing one contractual employee and appointing another contractual employee. The court also remarked that continual short-term contractual appointments in educational institutions not only jeopardize the future of employees but also affect the educational environment.
Orders for reinstatement and pending salary
The court said that when the teaching work for students is ongoing, employees cannot be kept in instability. Finally, the High Court annulled the order dated March 9, 2024, and directed the petitioner to be reinstated immediately, to be given continuity of service, and to be provided with all benefits.
The court also ordered that the pending salary be paid within four weeks with 6 percent annual interest.