Susheela Rana vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 6799

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Service Law - Extension in service - Age of superannuation - Discrimination - Principles of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel - The court examined whether a faculty member, who had been absorbed in a medical college on the promise of incentives including extension in service up to 65/68 years, could be denied such benefit by the State while granting it to similarly placed persons.

(B) Service Law - Extension versus Re-employment - An employee who is in service can be granted extension; extension cannot be granted after retirement - After retirement, only re-employment can be granted. (Para 15, 31)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a professor of Anatomy, was working at IGMC Shimla. In 2016-2017, the State of Himachal Pradesh issued notifications offering incentives (including extension in service up to 65/68 years) to faculty members from existing medical colleges who opted to join newly opened government medical colleges. The petitioner opted and was absorbed as Professor at SLBS Government Medical College, Ner Chowk. Despite the promise, the State retired her at age 62 (February 2022). The High Court stayed that retirement. During the pendency of the writ petition, the State retired her again at age 65 (March 2025) without the court's leave. The petitioner sought extension up to 68 years in terms of subsequent notifications (dated 17.12.2021 and 13.12.2023).

Findings of Court:
The court found that the State had granted extension up to the age of 68 years to similarly situated faculty members but denied the same benefit to the petitioner without any justifiable reason. The court noted that the State's action of retiring the petitioner at age 65 during the pendency of the case, without leave of the court, was a deliberate attempt to scuttle her claim for extension up to 68 years. The court also observed that the State had a shortage of teaching faculty and that vacant posts existed, making the denial arbitrary.

Issues: (1) Whether a faculty member who was absorbed in a medical college under an initial policy is entitled to the benefit of subsequent amendments providing for extension in service up to 68 years? (2) Whether the State could retire the petitioner at age 65 during the pendency of the writ petition without the court's permission? (3) Whether the denial of extension to the petitioner while granting it to others amounts to discrimination?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, having been absorbed on the promise of incentives and having continued in service, was entitled to the benefit of the policy as amended from time to time, including extension up to 68 years. The court further held that the State cannot discriminate between similarly situated employees and that the State's action of retiring the petitioner without leave of the court during the pendency of the proceedings was impermissible. The court directed the State to consider the petitioner's case for extension up to the age of 68 years, treating her as continuous in service.

Result: Petition allowed. Orders of retirement quashed. Respondents directed to consider the petitioner for extension in service up to the age of 68 years.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Dispute over extension in service for medical faculty under government notifications — Petition under Article 226. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )

2. Petitioner sought extension under amended policies; respondents contended extension discretionary and not applicable. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )

3. Petition allowed — Retirement orders quashed — Respondents directed to consider extension up to 68 years. (Para 33 )

4. Whether subsequent amendments to a policy apply to an employee who was absorbed under an earlier policy?

Yes, the court held that policy amendments apply to employees who were in service at the time of amendment, even if originally absorbed under an earlier policy. (Para 21 , 25 , 30 , 31 )

5. Whether denial of extension to one employee while granting it to similarly situated others violates equality?

Yes, the court held that denial of extension to the petitioner while granting it to similarly situated persons is discriminatory and unsustainable under Article 14. (Para 22 , 23 , 32 )

6. Whether a court can set aside a retirement order passed during pendency of proceedings without leave?

Yes, the court held that superannuating an employee during pendency without leave is improper and can be quashed as done with ulterior motive. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 31 )

Sandeep Sharma, J (Oral)

Petitioner herein, who had been working as professor and head Department of Anatomy, at Lal Bahadur Shastri Government Medical College, Ner Chowk, District Mandi, has approached this court in the instant proceedings, filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking therein direction to respondents to permit her to serve the afore College till her attaining age of 65/68 years, in terms of Notifications dated 25.6.2020, 17.12.2021 and 13.12.2023 (page-198), whereby it came to be notified that faculty Members of Dr. Y.S. Parmar Government Medical College, Nahan, Dr. Rajindra Prasad Government Medical College, Tanda and Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru Government Medical College, Chamba and Lal Bahadur Shastri Government Medical College, Ner Chowk i.e. Professors/ Assistant

Professors, who opted for change of their cadre from their institutions i.e. I.G.M.C, Shimla and Dr. RPGMC, Tanda before their retirement, shall be considered for extension in service upto the age of 68 years, subject to terms and conditions enumerated therein.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, which may be relevant for adjudication of the case at hand and as emerge from pleadings adduced on record are that in the year 2016, Government of Himachal Pradesh, decided to open four new Government Medical Colleges in the State and to meet requirement of teaching faculty, issued Notification dated 22.4.2016, regarding reemployment/extension in service to the faculty members of Government Medical Colleges in the State (Annexure P-3). Since despite there being decision of reemployment/ extension taken vide Notification dated 22.4.2016, teaching faculty requirement in newly opened Government Medical Colleges could not be met, in September, 2016, respondents decided to recruit medical faculty from the State cadre and from the existing medical colleges i.e. Dr. Rajindra Prasad Government Medical College, Tanda and IGMC Shimla by offering various incentives i.e. promotion, pay incentives, age of retirement, separate cadre, extension in service upto 65 years, re-employment after 65 years, etc. Once, incentives were declared, vide Notification dated Annexure P-4, Government of Himachal Pradesh decided to order that upper age limit for recruitment/appointment of faculty members in Lal Bahadur Shastri Government Medical College Ner Chowk shall be 65 years. However, same shall be applicable only for faculty coming at SLBS Ner Chowk, after

retirement from Government health institutions (State/Centre). Afore Notification further provided that extension shall be provided as per existing Government policy/Notification dated 25.4.2016.

3. Vide notification dated 4.3.2017, petitioner who was earlier working as Associate Professor in the Department of Anatomy, IGMC Shimla, came to be deputed in respondent No.3 college as designated Professor, Department of Anatomy, SLBS Government Medical College Mandi at Ner Chowk, for a period of one year. Since it was decided that the petitioner shall be considered for regular promotion to the post of Professor, subject to her opting as per policy, during her stay at respondent No.3-College, petitioner came to be given various incentives, as such, she gave her consent/option for serving with respondent No.3 and on 17.03.2017 (Annexure P-6), she was relived from her duties. Thereafter, petitioner was given promotion as Professor, in Department of Anatomy, SLBS Government Medical College, Ner Chowk, Mandi, vide Notification dated 27.9.2017 (Annexure P-7). Vide Notification dated 25.6.2020, respondent-State with a view to overcome the shortage of teaching faculty in the newly opened Government Medical Colleges provided incentive for existing teaching faculty in existing Government Medical Colleges, i.e. reemployment/ extension in service. Since despite there being aforesaid Notification, shortage of teaching faculty in newly opened Government Medical Colleges continued, respondent vide Notification dated 17.12.2021 (Annexure P-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 6799

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sandeep Sharma, J
Susheela Rana – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
CWP No. 1743 of 2022

A State cannot deny a benefit of extension in service to a faculty member while granting it to similarly placed persons, nor can it retire an employee during pendency of proceedings without court leave to defeat the claim.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Whether subsequent amendments to a policy apply to an employee who was absorbed under an earlier policy?

5. Whether denial of extension to one employee while granting it to similarly situated others violates equality?

6. Whether a court can set aside a retirement order passed during pendency of proceedings without leave?

2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 6799

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLASandeep Sharma, JSusheela Rana – AppellantVersusState of Himachal Pradesh – RespondentCWP No. 1743 of 2022

A State cannot deny a benefit of extension in service to a faculty member while granting it to similarly placed persons, nor can it retire an employee during pendency of proceedings without court leave to defeat the claim.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Whether subsequent amendments to a policy apply to an employee who was absorbed under an earlier policy?

5. Whether denial of extension to one employee while granting it to similarly situated others violates equality?

6. Whether a court can set aside a retirement order passed during pendency of proceedings without leave?

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sandeep Sharma, J
Susheela Rana – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
CWP No. 1743 of 2022