DR. SUSHEELA RANA V. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS CWP NO. 1743 OF 2022:

DATE: 04/08/2025

COURT: High Court of Himachal Pradesh

BENCH: Justice Sandeep Sharma

FACTS:

The petitioner, a Professor and Head of the Department of Anatomy at Lal Bahadur Shastri Government Medical College (SLBSGMC), Ner Chowk, Mandi, was originally serving as Associate Professor in IGMC, Shimla, before being deputed in March 2017 to SLBSGMC under the Government’s encadrement and incentive policy meant to address shortage of faculty in newly opened medical colleges. She accepted the option to permanently serve at SLBSGMC and was subsequently promoted as Professor in September 2017. The Government, through various notifications dated 25.04.2016, 14.09.2016, 25.06.2020, and 17.12.2021, had promised incentives to faculty members who opted for cadre change, including reemployment/extension of service up to the age of 65–68 years. Despite this, by notification dated 17.02.2022, the petitioner was ordered to superannuate at the age of 62, though on the same date she was reemployed for one year against a vacant post. Her representations seeking continuation up to 65/68 years were rejected, leading her to approach the High Court under Article 226 seeking quashing of the retirement and relieving orders, and a direction to allow her to serve till the age of 65–68 years in line with the notifications.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the High Court initially stayed the relieving order, which allowed the petitioner to continue serving as Professor. However, in March 2025, the respondents again passed an order superannuating her at the age of 65, while she continued to claim entitlement to serve till 68 in terms of the policy dated 17.12.2021. In their reply, the respondents did not dispute the factual background but argued that extension beyond the age of 65 cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and is to be granted only on a case-to-case basis by the competent authority. They contended that since the petitioner was promoted at SLBSGMC under the 2016 policy, which allowed extension only up to 65 years, she could not insist on continuation up to 68 years, even though some other faculty members had been given such extensions under subsequent notifications.

ISSUES:

The central issues before the Court were whether the petitioner, a Professor at SLBSGMC, Ner Chowk, was entitled to extension in service up to the age of 68 years under the Government’s policy notifications of 17.12.2021 and 13.12.2023, despite being superannuated at 62 and later at 65 years; whether denial of extension amounted to discriminatory treatment when similarly placed faculty members had been granted such benefit; and whether the respondents acted arbitrarily by ignoring vacancies, policy amendments, and the petitioner’s representations seeking extension.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the retirement orders dated 17.02.2022, 28.02.2022, and 06.03.2025, and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for extension of service up to 68 years in parity with other faculty members who had already been granted similar benefits. The Court further held that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in continuous service and her claim must be decided afresh in light of the applicable policies.

The Court reasoned that while extension of service is not a matter of right, it cannot be granted in a discriminatory or arbitrary manner, especially when the Government itself has issued policies providing for re-employment of medical faculty up to 68 years in newly established colleges. The petitioner’s conduct and service record were never in question, and the respondents failed to show any justification for denying her extension, particularly when substantial vacancies existed in the Department of Anatomy and across the State’s medical colleges. The Court noted that the petitioner had formally applied for extension through her representation dated 06.03.2025, but the respondents failed to consider it in light of the 2021 and 2023 notifications. Instead, they prematurely retired her at 65 years during the pendency of the writ petition, which appeared to be a mala fide attempt to frustrate her claim.

The Court also took judicial notice of the acute faculty shortage in Government medical colleges, which had even attracted penalties from the National Medical Commission, observing that the State, as a welfare government, is expected to adopt a fair and impartial approach in retaining qualified teaching staff. Since other similarly placed faculty members had been allowed to continue up to 68 years, denial of the same benefit to the petitioner amounted to hostile discrimination. Moreover, the fact that the respondents offered her re-engagement after retirement further showed that work was available, negating their stand. Accordingly, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the later policy decisions, quashed the impugned retirement orders, and directed consideration of her extension up to 68 years.

ANALYSIS:

The judgment underscores the principle that while extension of service is not an absolute right, the State cannot exercise its discretion in a discriminatory or arbitrary manner, particularly when its own policy decisions expressly provide for re-employment up to the age of 68 years for medical faculty in newly established colleges. The Court carefully balanced the Government’s discretion with the constitutional mandate of equality under Article 14, holding that denial of extension to the petitioner, despite her unblemished service record and the acute shortage of faculty, amounted to hostile discrimination. This was reinforced by the fact that similarly situated colleagues had already been granted the same benefit, thereby strengthening the petitioner’s claim to parity of treatment. The respondents’ act of re-engaging her immediately after retiring her further revealed the arbitrariness of their approach, as it proved the continued need for her services.

From a broader perspective, the decision reflects judicial recognition of systemic challenges in the healthcare education sector, particularly the shortage of qualified faculty and the State’s obligation as a welfare government to ensure continuity in medical teaching institutions. By quashing the retirement orders and directing fresh consideration of the petitioner’s claim in light of later policies, the Court sent a strong signal that policy benefits cannot be selectively applied to some while denied to others without cogent justification. The ruling reinforces the principles of fairness, parity, and non-arbitrariness in administrative decision-making, while also aligning governance with practical realities namely, the pressing need to retain experienced medical professionals in State institutions.