Contractual retirees are entitled to consideration under retiree-engagement policy absent an express exclusion.

The applicant, an Ex-TGT (Social Studies)/Mistress, was appointed on 26.11.2002 against a sanctioned post through open selection.

Although her initial engagement was for the academic session 2002–03, she continued in service without fresh selection until attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2019.

She challenged the relieving order dated 31.12.2019 and the subsequent order dated 26.02.2020 rejecting her request for continuation on a contractual basis up to the age of 65 years.

The applicant relied on the Chandigarh Administration’s policy dated 09.10.2018 concerning engagement of retirees/pensioners on a contractual basis, contending that the policy did not distinguish between regular and contractual retirees.

The respondents argued that her appointment was contractual and limited by the terms of her appointment, and that continuation after superannuation was governed by Rules 7.17 and 7.18 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, under which a retiree could apply only where a contractual requirement was advertised.

1. Whether the applicant, who had served as a contractual teacher until attaining superannuation, could claim consideration for contractual re-engagement under the policy dated 09.10.2018.

2. Whether the respondents were justified in rejecting her request solely on the ground that no policy instructions existed for extending the service of contractual appointees.

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to consideration of her claim for salary for the two-month period during which she asserted that she had worked.

The Tribunal applied the Chandigarh Administration’s policy dated 09.10.2018 governing the contractual engagement of retirees/pensioners, holding that the policy contained no exclusion of persons who had retired after serving on a contractual basis and made no distinction based on the mode of their earlier appointment.

It also considered Rules 7.17 and 7.18 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, relied upon by the respondents, which regulate contractual appointment of retirees where such engagement is required or advertised.

The Tribunal further proceeded on the principle of non-discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution, observing that similarly situated retirees could not be differentiated solely on the basis of whether their earlier service was regular or contractual in the absence of an express policy distinction.

The Tribunal found that the respondents’ rejection of the applicant’s request was based only on the asserted absence of a policy permitting contractual appointees to continue after superannuation.

On examining the policy dated 09.10.2018, it found no clause barring a person who had retired from contractual service from seeking engagement under the policy, nor any distinction between regular retirees and contractual retirees.

However, the Tribunal did not hold that the applicant possessed an automatic right to continuation up to the age of 65 years.

Instead, it held that her claim was required to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable policy.

The claim for salary was also directed to be considered conditionally, namely, if the applicant had actually worked during the relevant two-month period.

The Tribunal directed the competent authority to reconsider the applicant’s request for extension/re-engagement in service under the policy dated 09.10.2018 and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks.

It further directed the respondents to consider the applicant’s claim for payment of salary for two months, subject to verification that she had worked during that period.

The Tribunal did not grant an unconditional right to continuation up to the age of 65 years.