HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 13731 of 2025 Court No. - 32 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri Shahbaz Khan, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for respondents. 2. This is second round of litigation. Petitioner has earlier approached this Court by way of filing Writ-A No. 6651 of 2025, which was disposed of with an observation to consider the claim of petitioner. 3. In pursuance of above order, impugned order dated 11.07.2025 was passed whereby the claim of petitioner was rejected mainly on ground that he was a contractual appointee. It is specifically mentioned in impugned order that petitioner was in part time temporary service which came to an end with certain breaks on 30.09.2022 and thereafter petitioner has entered into a contract with Respondent-University, i.e., Aligarh Muslim University, which concluded on 31.01.2025 on attaining the age of 60 years. Therefore, claim of petitioner qua to commutation of pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. was rejected. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that initial appointment of petitioner was on basis of local/general selection committee and he has served and paid regularly. Thereafter under an assurance given by Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shahbaz Khan Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Saumitra Singh, Shashank Shekhar Singh Dr Mohd Shoeb Nadvi .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) respondents orally that even after entering into contract with Respondent- University, he is entitled for all retiral benefits, he entered into a contract. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Dharam Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and another, 2025 INSC 998 that in case petitioner has worked for substantial time, his above referred claim can be considered. 6. Learned counsel for respondents has opposed the above submissions and submits that petitioner has accepted conditions of contract with open eyes and he cannot take a U-turn on the conditions of contact which are specifically noted in impugned order. 7. I have considered the above submissions and perused the record. 8. Petitioner has entered into contract after his initial part time service with Respondent-University in October, 2022. Relevant Clauses 18, 19 and 20 of contract are reproduced hereinafter: “18. The Contract Appointee shall have no right or lien of any sort on the post he/she was working as specific contract Appointee in Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, alter termination or expiry of this contract. 19. The Contract Appointee shall not claim any benefit on account of any lien or entitlement from his/her parent department, if already employed elsewhere. 20. As noted above, the appointee under specific contract will not be governed with terms & conditions or service relating to permanent or temporary teachers of university who are appointed in terms of Statutes and Ordinances or any regulation of the university. The appointee's appointment will solely be governed by the specific contract for a particular period and that to determinable even without assigning any reason during contract period, subject to one-month notice or salary.” WRIA No. 13731 of 2025 2 9. Aforesaid conditions are not denied. Only on a vague ground that some oral assurance was given to petitioner, would not create any right if otherwise it is not legitimate. It is well settled that a contractual appointee is bound of conditions of contract. None of the condition of contract is under challenge. Even otherwise, after getting benefit of contract, petitioner cannot challenge it's conditions. 10. So far as judgment relied by learned counsel for petitioner in Dharam Singh (supra) is concerned, the facts of present case are distinguishable on law as well as on fact since in the present case petitioner has entered into contract with respondents with a specific condition that his contract will not be governed by terms and conditions of regular appointees of Respondent-University. 11. In view of above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. October 13, 2025 AK WRIA No. 13731 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad