Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 30.04.2025 vs State Of H.P. And Others on 30 April, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2025:HHC:11565
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.6763 of 2025
Date of Decision: 30.04.2025
_______________________________________________________
Prabal Kumar .......Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and Others ....Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Senior Advocate,
with M/s Parav Sharma, Shekhar Badola and
Vishali Lakhanpal.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr.
Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C. Verma and Mr. Vishal
Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with
Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
General, for respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, for
respondents No.2 to 4.
____________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated
13.09.2024 (Annexure P-5), whereby petitioner has been ordered to
be retired, on attaining the age of 58 years, petitioner has approached
this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the following
main relief:
"I. That the impugned order at Annexure P-5 may very kindly be
quashed and set aside to the extent the petitioner has been
ordered to be retired at the age of 58 years and respondents may
kindly be restrained from retiring the petitioner on 30.04.2025 on his
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2025:HHC:11565
attaining the age of 58 years and he may kindly be allowed to
continue to work in terms of Rule 12 of the H.P. University
Ordinance and H.P. University Handbook Part-II First Ordinance
1973, Appendix-A Chapter XXXVIII, para 38.5B(d) para 1 till his
attaining the age of 60 years, in the interest of justice.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the
pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that
petitioner after having passed M.A. Sanskrit and Hindi from Himachal
Pradesh University, was appointed as Teacher in the subject of
Sanskrit in Shree Maa Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Jawalamukhi, District
Kangra, Himachal Pradesh on 05.09.1997. In the year 2016-17, afore
institution got itself affiliated with Himachal Pradesh University ,
Shimla. In the year 2018, petitioner herein came to be promoted as
Head Teacher in the pay-scale of Rs.10300-34800+4400 Grade Pay.
Since prior to affiliation with respondent-University, College in
question was being governed by bye-laws of Trust and as per bye-
laws, employee including Teachers were to superannuate at the age
of 58 years, coupled with the fact that vide communication dated
13.09.2024, issued under the signatures of Temple Officer, Temple
Shri Jawalamukhi, Joint Commisioner-cum-SDO(C), Jawalamukhi,
District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, came to be apprised that as many
as eight employees are to be retired on the date given in the aforesaid
communication (30.04.2025 in the case of the petitioner), petitioner
2025:HHC:11565
has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein
for reliefs, as have been reproduced hereinabove.
3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been
highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Bhuvnesh
Sharma, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner is that
though after year 2016-17, respondent-Institution stands converted
into College and on account of its affiliation with Himachal Pradesh
University, it is governed by the Ordinances of Himachal Pradesh
University. While referring to Appendix 'A', Chapter XXXVIII
Paragraph 38.5B(d) (Annexure P-4), which provides for rules relating
to the teachers in non-government affiliated colleges, Mr. Sharma,
learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner argued that word
'Teacher' shall include the Principal unless otherwise stated and in
terms of Clause 12 of aforesaid rules, every teacher shall retire at the
age of 60 years or at the end of the semester of the academic session
even though he may have attained the age of 60 years. Mr. Sharma
states that since petitioner shall attain the age of 60 years in May
2027, he cannot be permitted to retire prior to afore date.
4. To the contrary, Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned counsel
representing the respondents No.2 to 4 vehemently argued that
petitioner institution is not governed by Ordinances of Himachal
Pradesh University, rather same is governed by its bye-laws, which
2025:HHC:11565
specifically provide for retirement of an employee of the Trust at the
age of 58 years. He submitted that as per bye-laws/Rules 2000 (Rule
3(i) Part-III), every employee of Institution shall retire at the age of 58
years. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to affiliation of
the Institution with Himachal Pradesh University, Mr. Deepak Sharma,
learned counsel representing the respondents No.2 to 4 attempted to
argue that mere affiliation, if any, with Himachal Pradesh University
would not make any difference, because service condition including
retirement age would ultimately be governed by bye-laws/Rules of
2000 framed by the Trust.
5. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties
and perused material available on record, especially reply filed on
behalf of respondents No.2 to 4, this Court finds that prior to the year
2014, College in which petitioner stands employed was being run as a
School, however, vide communication dated 31.07.2014 (Annexure
R-5), N.O.C. was issued by Department of Higher Education,
Government of Himachal Pradesh for starting Sanskrit College/Shastri
Course by Temple Trust Jawalamukhi i.e. respondent No.2 herein.
Since the year 2014, Institution concerned is being run as a College
and not as a School. It is also not in dispute that at the time of
conversion of School to the College, services of all Teachers including
petitioner were continued and thereafter petitioner was also made
2025:HHC:11565
officiating Principal. It is also not in dispute that in the year 2016-17,
pursuant to request made by Institution concerned, same was
affiliated with Himachal Pradesh University. Once Institution
concerned got itself affiliated with Himachal Pradesh University, it is to
be governed by Ordinances of the University.
6. True it is that prior to aforesaid developments, bye-laws
of 2000 stood framed by Temple Trust for running the Institution
concerned, but once it got itself affiliated with Himachal Pradesh
University, it is bound to follow the Rules & Regulations formulated by
Himachal Pradesh University, especially with regard to Teachers of
non-government affiliated colleges. At this stage, it would be apt to
take note of Appendix 'A', Chapter XXXVIII, Paragraph 38.5B(d), part-
I, which reads as under:
"APPENDIX 'A'
[Chapter XXXVIII Paragraph 38.5 B(d)]
RULES RELATING TO THE TEACHERS OF NON-GOVERNMENT
AFFILIATED COLLEGES
1. In these rules the word 'teacher' shall include the Principal also,
unless otherwise stated.
*** *** ***
*** *** ***
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."
2025:HHC:11565
7. As per aforesaid Rules, word 'Teacher' would include
Principal also. Clause 12 clearly provides that every Teacher shall
retire at the age of 60 years or at the end of the semester or the
academic session. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of the
fact that in past also, Coordinate Benches of this Court, having taken
note of aforesaid provision contained in the Ordinance of Himachal
Pradesh University, directed various Temple Trusts, including the
present one, to permit Teachers to work in the Institution till the age of
60 years or till the end of the academic session/semester. [See
judgment dated 27.09.2011, CWP No.2209 of 2009, titled as Dr.
Devender Nath Kashyap Vs. Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust and
Other, judgment dated 21.12.2012, CWP No.4312 of 2012, titled as
Rattneshwar Jha Vs. Shri Shakti Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya and
Others, judgment dated 01.05.2013, LPA No.45 of 2013, titled as
Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust and Others Vs. Dr. Karam Singh
Rana and Others.]
8. It is not in dispute that aforesaid judgments have attained
finality and pursuant to directions contained in the same, petitioners
therein were permitted to work till the age of 60 years. Most
importantly, Coordinate Bench of this Court in case titled as Veena
Kumari Vs. State of H.P. and Others, CWP No.1635 of 2019,
decided on 05.08.2021, which pertains to the Institution involved in
2025:HHC:11565
the case at hand, directed respondents to permit the petitioner therein
to work till her attaining the age of 60 years.
9. Though Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned counsel
representing respondents No.2 to 4 attempted to argue that facts of
Veena Kumari (supra) are totally different and direction contained in
the same cannot be made applicable in the case at hand, but bare
perusal of aforesaid judgment nowhere compels this Court to agree
with Mr. Deepak Sharma. Interestingly, Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned
counsel representing the respondents No.2 to 4 argued that since
Veena Kumari (supra) was being retired during the mid-academic
session, Coordinate Bench of this Court passed the order dated
05.08.2021, however, bare perusal of aforesaid judgment nowhere
suggests same, rather it clearly reveals that Court concerned having
taken note of Appendix 'A', Chapter XXXVIII, Paragraph 38.5B(d),
arrived at a conclusion that Institution affiliated with Himachal Pradesh
University cannot retire a Teacher at the age of 58 years, rather, a
Teacher is required to be permitted to work till the age of 60 years or
end of the academic session.
10. Initial appointment of the petitioner as Teacher in Sanskrit
School may not be of much relevance, especially when it is not in
dispute that School was subsequently converted into a College and at
the time of conversion, services of the petitioner as well as other
2025:HHC:11565
similarly situate person were also continued. Once factum with regard
to giving officiating charge of the post of Principal in College to the
petitioner is not in dispute, coupled with the fact that College stands
affiliated to Himachal Pradesh University, he cannot be retired at the
age of 58 years, rather, shall continue to work in afore capacity till his
attaining the age of 60 years or the end of the academic session.
11. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit
in the present petition and accordingly the same is allowed. Order
dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure P-5) is quashed & set-aside qua the
petitioner only and respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to
continue to work in the Institution concerned till the age of 60 years or
till the end of academic session, whichever is later. Pending
application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
Learned counsel representing the respondents No.2 to 4
undertakes to inform the Institution concerned with regard to passing
of instant order today itself, so that petitioner is not relieved from the
post, he is holding.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
April 30, 2025
(Rajeev Raturi)
