Justice Sandeep Sharma, Himachal Pradesh High Court
Himachal Pradesh High Court Extends Time Of Service Of Professor After Retirement; Says Welfare State Expected To Work Impartially
|The Court was considering a Writ Petition to extend the period of service upto the age of 68 years as notified by the State.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court directed the State to extend the period of Service of the Professor upto the age of 68 years as it was done in case of other persons.
A Writ Petition was filed by the Professor at Lal Bahadur Shastri Government Medical College to extend the period of service upto the age of 68 years, as issued by the State in various notifications.
A Bench of Justice Sandeep Sharma observed, “This court cannot have any quarrel with the exposition of law, set out in Ravinder Nath, supra, wherein it was held that extension is granted to an employee, who is in service and no extension can be granted after retirement. However, it is a peculiar case, where respondents during the pendency of the case, fully knowing that prayer with regard to petitioner’s claim of retirement at the age of 68 years, is pending adjudication before this court, proceeded to issue Notification dated 6.3.2025, thereby retiring petitioner at the age of 65 years, that too with seemingly ulterior motive to prevent her from claiming extension in service upto the age of 68 years.”
Advocate C.N. Singh represented the Petitioner, while Advocate General Anoop Rattan represented the Respondent.
Case Brief
The Petitioner had been working as a Professor and head Department of Anatomy, at Lal Bahadur Shastri Government Medical College and sought to direct the Respondents to permit her to serve the said College till her attaining age of 65/68 years, in terms of certain Notifications.
Petitioner had opted to work at Respondent No.3- college in terms of policy decision taken by Respondent No.1 whereby existing faculty was promised to be given extension till the age of 65 years, but to utter dismay of petitioner, Respondent ordered superannuation of the Petitioner at the age of 62 years, with effect from February 02,2022.
The Respondent contended that the extension cannot be claimed as a matter of right, rather, decision qua the same shall be taken by competent authority on case to case basis.
As per the policy decisions Respondent State decided to recruit medical faculty from within the State Cadre and from existing Government Medical Colleges i.e. IGMC Shimla and RPGMC Tanda, by offering various incentives like promotion, pay, higher age of retirement, separate cadre, extension in service upto 65 years, reemployment after 65 years etc. and subsequently vide other notifications, it was also decided that faculty shall be given extension in service upto the age of 65/68 years.
Court’s Analysis
The Court opined, “True, it is that policies if read in their entirety, suggest that extension in service cannot be claimed as a matter of right, rather same shall be considered on case to case basis, but at the same time, this court cannot lose sight of the fact that while making decision to permit teaching faculty to continue upto age of 65/68 years, no discrimination can be made inter se two employees.”
The Court noted that nowhere it was suggested that the conduct of the Petitioner was such that she cannot be granted extension or she during period of extension upto age of 65 years, failed to perform her duties to the satisfaction of employer.
Moreover, as per the information received under the Right to Information Act, 2005, it was revealed that 13 posts of Professors are vacant in Respondent No.3 College and in total there after 54 vacancies of Professors, Assistant Professors and Associate Professors.
The Court also noted that there is shortage of teaching faculty in almost all the Government Medical Colleges in the State. It was highlighted that National Medical Commission imposed penalty of Rs.12.00 Lakh per Government Medical College, for faculty deficiency.
“Consequent upon imposition of penalty and shortage of teaching faculty, it is not only public at large, which suffers, but students studying in such institutions, may not get NOCs for further applying to PG super specialist courses”, the Court added.
While criticising the conduct of the Respondents, the Court said that Respondent-State being ‘welfare State’ was expected to work impartially without there being any bias, but the Respondents have become very touchy about the action of Petitioner as she approached the Court, for her rightful claim.
The Court observed, “Though at the time of superannuation of petitioner, at the age of 65 years, work was available with the respondents, which is otherwise evident from notification dated 25.06.2025 (Annexure R-1), whereby petitioner was offered reengagement for a period of six months, but yet she was denied extension upto the age of 68 years. Once, work was very much available and persons, similarly situate to petitioner, were allowed to work till the age of 68 years, there was otherwise no occasion for the respondents to deny similar benefit/treatment to the petitioner, who otherwise has unblemished service record.”
Consequently, the High Court directed the State to extend the period of Service of the Professor upto the age of 68 years.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition was allowed.
Cause Title: Dr. Susheela Rana V. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates C.N. Singh, Nidhi Singh, Anshul Gandhi
Respondents: Anoop Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General & Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.