The Allahabad High Court has ruled that continuation in service until the end of an academic session is not an automatic privilege available to every teacher.
The Court observed that the “session benefit” is an exception carved out solely to ensure that students’ studies are not disrupted.
Accordingly, the benefit can be extended only to a teacher who is actively engaged in regular classroom teaching at the time of retirement.
Merely holding the post of Associate Professor or drawing a salary in that capacity does not, by itself, confer eligibility.
Likewise, a faculty member posted at a research centre and not involved in regular teaching cannot claim such protection.
The Court cited an order passed by the Supreme Court in Dr. Indu Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand & others, 2017 SCC Online Utt 1527 and ruled that,
“...that the benefit of continuance till the end of the academic session is available only to those teachers who are actually discharging teaching duties. The determination as to whether the petitioner was in fact functioning as a teacher, i.e., performing teaching duties, is a matter to be decided by the competent authority. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the petitioner is not entitled to any such benefit.”
The said order was delivered by Justice Manju Rani Chauhan while dismissing a writ petition filed by Dr. Avadhesh Kumar Tripathi.
The petitioner had challenged the orders dated June 30, 2026, and July 15, 2026, issued by Director (Administration and Monitoring), Banda University of Agriculture and Technology, under which he was directed to retire on July 31, 2026, and his request to remain in service until the close of the academic session on June 30, 2027, was declined.
Explaining the object behind the provision, the Court noted that session benefit is intended to safeguard the academic interests of students rather than to provide an additional service advantage to an employee.
It is not a statutory or vested right available on demand. Instead, it is a limited concession as provided by the State Government that may be granted only where a teacher’s retirement is likely to interrupt an ongoing academic programme because he or she is actually teaching students.
The counsel of the petitioner argued that his substantive appointment was as an Associate Professor (Agronomy) and that he had merely been entrusted with the additional charge of In-charge, Millets Research Station, Gursarai.
Relying on the Agricultural University Act and the Government Order dated June 14, 2022, he argued that he should have been allowed to remain in service until the age of 62 and, in any event, till the end of the ongoing academic session.
The university opposed the petition, submitting that Dr. Tripathi was not involved in regular classroom teaching when he retired. It submitted that he had been working at the Millets Research Station, where his role was limited to research and administrative functions.
As he was not teaching students during the relevant period, the university argued that he did not fulfill the essential requirement for being granted the session benefit.
After examining the record, the High Court found no material to show that Dr. Tripathi was regularly teaching undergraduate or postgraduate students at the relevant time.
The Court also found nothing to indicate that his retirement would adversely affect any ongoing academic programme.
It held that participation in research activities, however significant, does not by itself qualify a teacher for session benefit.
The Court further clarified that the pendency of a dispute relating to promotion cannot create a right to continue in service after the date of superannuation.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Case: Dr. Awadhesh Kumar Tripathi vs State of U.P. and 3 others
Case No: WRIT A No. – 10829 of 2026
Date of Order: 24.07.2026
Status: Dismissed
