HP High Court | Faculty Entitled to Extension up to 68 Years | Welfare State Must Act Impartially, Not Be “Touchy” When Employees Assert Rights
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Sandeep Sharma has quashed government notifications dated 17.2.2022, 28.2.2022, and 6.3.2025 that had ordered the retirement of a senior professor. The Court directed the State authorities to consider the petitioner’s case for extension in service up to the age of 68 years in terms of existing policy decisions and as had been granted to other similarly situated faculty members. The Court further held that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in continuous service and that respondents are required to take a fresh decision considering that the petitioner has not yet retired. The judicial direction specifically mandates parity in treatment with other faculty members who have already been extended similar benefits under applicable policies.
The petitioner had been serving as Professor and Head of the Department of Anatomy at Lal Bahadur Shastri Government Medical College, Ner Chowk, District Mandi. She invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions to be permitted to continue service until attaining the age of 65/68 years in terms of various notifications issued by the State Government. The petitioner contended that notifications dated 25.6.2020, 17.12.2021, and 13.12.2023 provided for extension in service of faculty members in Government Medical Colleges up to the age of 68 years subject to conditions.
The background reveals that in 2016 the State of Himachal Pradesh decided to open four new Government Medical Colleges. To meet the requirement of teaching faculty, a Notification dated 22.4.2016 was issued regarding reemployment and extension in service of faculty members. Despite this, the shortage of faculty continued. In September 2016, the Government decided to recruit medical faculty from the State cadre and existing medical colleges at IGMC Shimla and Dr. Rajindra Prasad Government Medical College Tanda by offering incentives, including promotions, pay incentives, higher retirement age, extension in service up to 65 years, and reemployment thereafter.
Notification dated 14.9.2016 fixed the upper age limit for recruitment in Lal Bahadur Shastri Government Medical College, Ner Chowk, at 65 years for those joining after retirement from State or Central health institutions. Extension was to be governed by the Notification dated 25.4.2016.
By Notification dated 4.3.2017, the petitioner, then an Associate Professor in IGMC Shimla, was deputed to SLBS Government Medical College as designated Professor for one year. She gave her consent and opted to serve permanently in the said college. On 27.9.2017, she was promoted as Professor in the Department of Anatomy. Later, by Notification dated 25.6.2020, the State provided further incentives including reemployment and extension in service. Notification dated 17.12.2021 extended incentives to attract faculty members from IGMC Shimla and RPGMC Tanda under the encadrement policy for extension up to 68 years.
Despite these provisions, on 17.2.2022, the Government ordered the petitioner’s superannuation at the age of 62 years with effect from 28.2.2022. On the same day, the State issued a notification granting her reemployment as Professor in the Department of Anatomy at SLBSGMC Mandi from 1.3.2022 for one year or until the post was filled by regular recruitment. The petitioner challenged these notifications, arguing that she was entitled to continue till 65/68 years under the policy decisions.
On 29.3.2022, the Court stayed the operation of the notifications dated 17.2.2022 and 28.2.2022, allowing her to continue in service. However, during the pendency of the proceedings, the respondents issued an order dated 6.3.2025 superannuating her at the age of 65 years. The petitioner contended that this order was issued without leave of the Court and with the purpose of preventing her from claiming extension till 68 years as provided by the notifications dated 17.12.2021 and 13.12.2023.
The respondents argued that extension cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that the petitioner was governed by the 2016 notification which provided for extension only up to 65 years. They further contended that the encadrement policy did not apply to her. They admitted that extensions to 68 years had been granted to other faculty members but justified the distinction by stating that extension was on a case-to-case basis.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that she was entitled to parity with other similarly placed faculty members and that she had been absorbed in SLBSGMC Mandi, becoming regular faculty. They pointed to several instances where faculty members were allowed extension till 68 years. They contended that the State failed to honor its assurances and that the petitioner’s retirement orders were issued to scuttle her claim.
Justice Sandeep Sharma recorded detailed observations on the issue. The Court noted: “Since the respondents, did not approach this Court before passing order dated 6.3.2025, thereby retiring petitioner at the age of 65 year, this court has reasons to presume and believe that order dated 6.3.2025, was purposely passed by the respondents, with a view to prevent, petitioner from seeking further extension upto the age of 68 years.”
The Court observed that while policies indicate that extension cannot be claimed as a matter of right and must be decided on a case-to-case basis, the principle of equality must apply. The Court stated: “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 further noted: “Respondents in cases of persons as detailed in Annexures P- 17, 22, 24 and 25 have granted extension upto the age of 68 years, however, for no justifiable reasons, same benefit is being denied to the petitioner.”
Addressing the argument that the petitioner did not request extension to 68 years, the Court found: “Such plea does not appear to be correct for the reason that vide communication dated 6.3.2025, addressed to Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, petitioner prayed for extension in service upto the age of 68 to 70 years in terms of policy decision dated 17.12.2021 and Notification dated 13.12.2023, but till date, no decision has been taken on the same.”
The Court observed that despite shortage of faculty, as admitted by the Government itself in replies filed in other cases, the petitioner’s extension was denied. “It is quite apparent from reply filed by respondents, that repeatedly, State Government has been cautioned by National Medical Commission with respect to overall faculty deficiency. Last year, National Medical Commission imposed penalty of Rs.12.00 Lakh per Government Medical College, for faculty deficiency, but despite that the State Government has not learnt any lesson.”
The Court also criticized the respondents’ conduct, noting: “Respondent-State being ‘welfare State’ is expected to work impartially without there being any bias, but it seems that the respondents have become very touchy about the action of petitioner inasmuch as she approached this court, for her rightful claim.”
The Court held that the petition deserved to be allowed. The final order reads: “Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made supra as well as law taken note above, this court finds merit in the petition, which is accordingly allowed. Orders dated 17.2.2022 (Annexure P-11), 28.2.2022 (Annexure P-14) and order dated 6.3.2025 (Annexure NA/P-1) are quashed and set aside.”
The Court further directed: “Respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner, for extension in service upto the age of 68 years, as has been done in case of other persons detailed in Annexures P- 17, 22, 24 and 25.”
The Bench clarified: “Needless to say, on account of quashment of aforesaid orders, petitioner shall be deemed to be in continuous service and respondents shall take a decision in the matter, taking note of the fact that petitioner has not yet retired.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. C.N. Singh, Dr. Nidhi Singh and Mr. Anshul Gandhi, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anoop Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State.
Case Title: Dr. Susheela Rana v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others
Case Number: CWP No. 1743 of 2022
Bench: Justice Sandeep Sharma
