Himachal HC slams govt for 'ulterior motive' in retiring professor at 65, orders reinstatement

Shimla: The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently directed the State Government to reinstate the former Professor and Head of Anatomy at Lal Bahadur Shastri Government Medical College and granted her service extension till 68 years, along with all consequential benefits.

While considering the doctor's plea, the HC bench comprising Justice Sandeep Sharma held that the government acted unfairly by retiring Dr. Susheela Rana at 65, on March 6, 2025, despite her pending plea seeking extension under government policies of 2020, 2021 and 2023.

Earlier, Dr. Rana used to serve at IGMC Shimla. She shifted to the medical college in Ner Chowk in 2017 under a State scheme promising a higher retirement age to attract faculty to fill up posts at the new medical colleges. Dr. Rana was then promoted to the post of Professor.

Even though the policies notified in June 2020, December 2021, and December 2023 provided for an extension in service for faculty members up to the age of 68 years, Dr. Rana was ordered to retire at 62 in February 2022.

When the doctor challenged the order, the HC bench stayed this order and allowed her to work until March 2025, when the State again retired her at 65 without seeking the Court's leave. Following this, she challenged the decision before the HC bench again and sought parity with colleagues who had been granted extensions up to 68 years.

Also Read: Uttarakhand Raises Retirement Age of Specialist Doctors to 65 Years

Addressing the issue of the extension of retirement age granted to some faculty members, up to the age of 68 years, the State argued that while this fact was not denied, the policy gives them the liberty to consider requests for extension on a case-by-case basis.

RTI records placed before the HC bench revealed that Pt. JLNGMC Chamba had 13 vacant professor posts, and overall, there were 53 faculty vacancies. Earlier, due to the shortage of faculty, the National Medical Commission (NMC) had imposed penalties, noted the Court.

"It is quite apparent from reply filed by respondents, that repeatedly, State Government has been cautioned by National Medical Commission with respect to overall faculty deficiency. Last year, National Medical Commission imposed penalty of Rs.12.00 Lakh per Government Medical College, for faculty deficiency, but despite that the State Government has not learnt any lesson," the bench observed at this outset.

"Consequent upon imposition of penalty and shortage of teaching faculty, it is not only public at large, which suffers, but students studying in such institutions, may not get NOCs for further applying to PG super specialist courses," it further observed.

It further observed that other similarly placed professors were allowed to work till 68, and there was no record of misconduct or poor performance against Dr. Rana.

"True, it is that policies if read in their entirety, suggest that extension in service cannot be claimed as a matter of right, rather same shall be considered on case to case basis, but at the same time, this court cannot lose sight of the fact that while making decision to permit teaching faculty to continue upto age of 65/68 years, no discrimination can be made inter se two employees. As has been taken note herein above, respondents in cases of persons as detailed .. have granted extension upto the age of 68 years, however, for no justifiable reasons, same benefit is being denied to the petitioner," noted the High Court.

The bench observed that during the pendency of the doctor's plea, the State "purposely" retired her at 65 without seeking permission from the Court even though the policies dated December 17, 2021, and December 13, 2023, permitted such extensions for faculty members.

Slamming the government for bypassing the judicial propriety by retiring Dr. Rana without seeking the court's leave, the HC bench directed the Government to treat her as being in continuous service and grant the same retirement age extension up to 68 years. It also warned that the "case-to-case" clause in the policy could not be twisted for arbitrary discrimination.

"Since the petitioner was very much in job as on 6.3.2025, she is entitled to benefit of policy decisions dated 17.12.2021 and 13.12.2023. This court cannot have any quarrel with the exposition of law, set out in Ravinder Nath, supra, wherein it was held that extension is granted to an employee, who is in service and no extension can be granted after retirement. However, it is a peculiar case, where respondents during the pendency of the case, fully knowing that prayer with regard to petitioner’s claim of retirement at the age of 68 years, is pending adjudication before this court, proceeded to issue Notification dated 6.3.2025, thereby retiring petitioner at the age of 65 years, that too with seemingly ulterior motive to prevent her from claiming extension in service upto the age of 68 years," observed the bench.

"Though at the time of superannuation of petitioner, at the age of 65 years, work was available with the respondents, which is otherwise evident from notification dated 25.06.2025 (Annexure R-1), whereby petitioner was offered reengagement for a period of six months, but yet she was denied extension upto the age of 68 years. Once, work was very much available and persons, similarly situate to petitioner, were allowed to work till the age of 68 years, there was otherwise no occasion for the respondents to deny similar benefit/treatment to the petitioner, who otherwise has unblemished service record," it further noted.

Accordingly, granting relief to the petitioner doctor, the HC bench directed the State to reinstate her and extend the service till 68 years. It ordered, "Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made supra as well as law taken note above, this court finds merit in the petition, which is accordingly allowed. Orders dated 17.2.2022 (Annexure P-11), 28.2.2022 (Annexure P-14) and order dated 6.3.2025 are quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner, for extension in service upto the age of 68 years, as has been done in case of other persons detailed in Annexures P- 17, 22, 24 and 25. Needless to say, on account of quashment of aforesaid orders, petitioner shall be deemed to be in continuous service and respondents shall take a decision in the matter, taking note of the fact that petitioner has not yet retired."

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/himachal-pradesh-hc-297669.pdf

Also Read:Punjab raises retirement age of doctors, dental faculty to 65