Tuesday, 19, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Veena Kumari vs State Of H.P. And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3605 HP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3605 HP
Judgement Date : 5 August, 2021

Himachal Pradesh High Court
Veena Kumari vs State Of H.P. And Others on 5 August, 2021
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Justice, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
                                            1



             HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                C.W.P. No. 1635 of 2019

                                                Date of decision: 05.08.2021




                                                                                 .

    Veena Kumari                                                         ...Petitioner

                                      Versus





    State of H.P. and others                      ...Respondents
    ____________________________________________________
    Coram:
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath, Acting Chief Justice



    Whether approved for reporting1 :
                         r                  to
    The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

    For the Petitioner(s):            S/Shri Bhuvnesh Sharma and Ramakant
                                      Sharma, Advocates.

    For the Respondents:              Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General,


                                      with Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Mr. Vikas
                                      Rathore Ms.Ritta Goswami, Additional
                                      Advocates General and Ms. Seema
                                      Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for




                                      the State





                                      Mr. K.D.Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr.
                                      Sukrit Sood, Advocate, for respondents
                                      No. 2, 4 and 5.





                         Through Video Conference
    ____________________________________________________
    Jyotsna Rewal Dua,J.

On the strength of the rules "Relating to the

Teachers of Non Government Affiliated Colleges", the petitioner

Whether Reporters of local newspaper are permitted to see the judgment ?

prays that she be allowed to continue to work till her attaining the

age of 60 years and at the end of the academic session on

30.06.2022.

.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Sahitya Acharya in

Sanskrit Vidayalaya Jawalamukhi on 21.07.2005 in respondent

No.2 institution. This institution is affiliated to H.P. University,

Shimla as Shree Maa Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Jawalamukhi. The

service condition of its teachers are governed by H.P. University

Ordinances. Appendix A Chapter XXXVIII Paragraph 38.5 B(d) of

the Ordinances contains the rules relating to the teachers of Non

Government Affiliated Colleges. Rule 12 of these Rules reads as

under :-

"12. Every teacher shall retire at the age of 60 years.

However, a teacher shall be allowed to continue in service till the end of the semester or the academic session even though he may have attained the age of 60 years."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that

respondent No.2 institution is affiliated to the H.P. University,

therefore, the petitioner should be allowed to continue in service

till she attains the age of 60 years and also till the end of the

academic session. The petitioner's date of birth is 29.08.1961.

She will attain the age of 60 years on 28.08.2021. Her due date of

retirement at the end of academic session in accordance with

above extracted rule 12 will be 30.06.2022.

4. The factual situation has not been disputed by Mr.

.

K.D. Sood, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of

respondents No. 2, 4 and 5. He has also not disputed the fact

that respondent No.2 educational institution at present is affiliated

with the respondent University. That being the position, the rules

relating to the teachers of Non Government Affiliated Colleges as

contained in Appendix A of the H.P. University Ordinance

become applicable to the petitioner. She, therefore, is entitled to

continue to service till she attains the age of 60 years

(28.08.2021) and till the end of academic session which statedly

will be over on 30.06.2022. This position of law has already been

reiterated in CWP No. 2209 of 2009, titled Dr. Devender Nath

Kashyap Versus Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust and others,

decided on 27.09.2011 and followed in CWP No. 4312 of 2012

Rattneshwar Jha, Versus Shri Shakti Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya,

Shri Naina Devi Ji and others and 4313 of 2012 titled Dr. Karam

Singh Rana, Versus Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust, Deothsidh

and others as well as in LPA No. 45 of 2013 titled Baba Balak

Nath Temple Trust Vs. Karam Singh Rana and LPA No. 51 of

2013 titled Shri Shakti Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Vs. Rattneshwar

Jha.

The case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid

decisions. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The

respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to continue to

.

work in the respondent No.2 institution till 30.06.2022 when the

current academic session would come to an end. Pending

applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

                     r            to            ( Ravi Malimath )
                                               Acting Chief Justice

    5th August, 2021 (K)                       ( Jyotsna Rewal Dua )
                                                      Judge









 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter