IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.18942 of 2025

Decided on: 03.12.2025

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mast Ram …..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. and others . ....Respondents

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mur. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate

General and Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General for

respondents No. 1 & 2.

Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for

h respondent No.3.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

i This writ petition has been filed for grant of

following substantive reliefs:-

“a) To direct the respondents by way of issuance of Writ of Mandamus to quash the memorandum dated 04.11.2019 and restore the notification dated 29.03.2013 by including categories of other disabled persons to grant benefit of enhancement of

retirement from 58 to 60 years to the petitioner.

b) To extend the benefit of retirement age from 58 to 60 years to the petitioner being a locomotor disabled person alongwith all other consequential

benefits and arrears of pay, promotion etc.

1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

c) That the respondents may be directed to consider the detailed representation dated 26.09.2025 of the petitioner in view of the Bhupinder Singh and Krishan Chand’s case (supra) duriPng the pendency of the writ petition.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner endevoured to contend that impugned memorandum dated 04.11.2019 issued by the respondents withdrawingf the enhancement of age of retirement for specially abled employees from 60 years to 58 years was bad in eytes of law.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.

4. The validity of office memorandum dated 04.11.2019 had been questioned in Ses Ram versus State of H.P and others., CWP No.851/2020, decided on 31.07.2022 a/w connected matters. The question before the Hon’ble Division Bench in Ses Ram² was as under:-

“Office memorandum dated 29.03.2013 enhancing the retirement age of the Blind Government Employees from 58 years to 60 years has been withdrawn by the State vide office memorandum dated 04.11.2019. Aggrieved against this withdrawal, all these petitions have been preferred laying challenge to the office memorandum dated 04.11.2019. Being connected and involving the same issue, all these petitions are taken up together for disposal.”

The writ petitions were dismissed holding that OM dated 29.03.2013 was issued by the State in exercise of its Administrative/ Executive Power. There was no legal embargo upon the respondents-State to withdraw the same by subsequently, issuing another office memorandum on 04.11.2019. The administrative or executive power of respondents-State to issue OM dated 04.11.2019 cannot be questioned. Portion from the decision relevant to the context is extracted hereinafter:- f "3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

3(i) At the outset, it tmay be noticed that OM dated 29.03.2013 was irssued by State in exercise of its Administrative/Executive Power. Therefore, there was no legal embargo upon the respondents/State to withdraw the same by subsequently issuing another office memorandum on 04.11.2019. The administrative or executive power of the respondents/State to issue OM dated 04.11.2019 cannot be questioned.

h3(iv) It is well settled that in order for executive instructions to have the force of statutory rules, t gmust be shown that they have been issued either under the authority conferred on the State i Government by some statute or under some H provision of the constitution providing therefore. In the instant case the Oms in question have not been issued either under the authority conferred on the State Government by some statute or und