Case-to-Case Cannot Mean Arbitrary: Uniform Consideration for Extension up to 68 and No Superannuation During Pending Writs — Dr. Susheela Rana v. State of HP (2025)

Court: High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma

Date: 4 August 2025

Approved for reporting: Yes (precedential value)

Introduction

This writ petition arose from the State’s policy efforts to staff newly established government medical colleges in Himachal Pradesh. To attract faculty from existing institutions (IGMC, Shimla and Dr. RPGMC, Tanda), the State successively announced incentives including promotion, pay benefits, and extension of service beyond conventional retirement ages.

The petitioner, Dr. Susheela Rana, an Associate Professor at IGMC, Shimla, was deputed in March 2017 to Lal Bahadur Shastri Government Medical College (SLBSGMC), Ner Chowk, and was promoted as Professor of Anatomy in September 2017 upon opting for the policy. In 2020 and 2021, the State expanded the extension regime, enabling qualified faculty to serve up to 68 years on a case-to-case basis. However, in February 2022 the petitioner was ordered to superannuate at 62, and simultaneously offered a one-year re-employment. After interim protection from the High Court allowed her to continue, the State then superannuated her at 65 by an order dated 6 March 2025 — while the writ was still pending and without leave of the Court.

Key issues included:

Whether faculty absorbed under the earlier 2016 policy are entitled to consideration under later extension policies (2020, 2021, 2023) enhancing the maximum age to 68 if they remained in service when those policies issued.
Whether “case-to-case” discretion permits the State to deny extension to some while granting others without cogent reasons.
Whether the State could validly superannuate the petitioner during the pendency of the writ (and after interim orders) without the Court’s leave.
The interplay between “extension” (pre-retirement) and “re-employment” (post-retirement) and the effect of the earlier ruling in Ravinder Nath Pathak v. State of HP.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court:

Quashed three State actions: (a) notification dated 17.02.2022 retiring the petitioner at 62; (b) relieving order dated 28.02.2022; and (c) order dated 06.03.2025 superannuating her at 65 during the pendency of the writ.
Directed the State to consider the petitioner’s case for extension in service up to 68 years in parity with similarly situated faculty who have been granted such benefit (as per Annexures P-17, P-22, P-24, P-25).
Deemed the petitioner to be in continuous service for the purposes of such consideration, observing that “the petitioner has not yet retired.”

In substance, the Court held that later extension policies (2020, 2021, 2023) apply to faculty who were in service when those policies were promulgated; “case-to-case” does not license discrimination; and the State cannot defeat an employee’s pending claim by superannuating her during the litigation without leave of Court.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The State relied upon Ravinder Nath Pathak And Another v. State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another, CWP No. 3392 of 2020, decided on 17.11.2022. That decision clarifies that:

Extension is available only to an employee who is still in service at the relevant time; once retired, the employee can at best seek re-employment.

How the Court used/distinguished it: The High Court accepted the legal proposition but found the facts here distinct. It held that the State had, during the pendency of the writ and despite interim protection, superannuated the petitioner at 65 without leave — an action the Court viewed as calculated to frustrate her extension claim. By quashing those orders and deeming continuity, the Court ensured the petitioner remained “in service” for the limited purpose of being considered for extension up to 68. Thus, Ravinder Nath does not bar relief; it is satisfied by restoring the petitioner’s in-service status.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds along four reinforcing tracks:

1) Policy evolution and legitimate entitlements while in service

The State’s initial 2016 policy allowed re-employment/extension up to 65 to incentivize faculty to join new colleges. Later policies — notably the notifications dated 25.06.2020, 17.12.2021, and 13.12.2023 — enhanced the maximum extension age to 68 on a case-to-case basis.
The petitioner had been absorbed and promoted as Professor at SLBSGMC on 27.09.2017 and was continuously in service when the 2020/2021/2023 policies were issued. Additional benefits accruing from amended policies must be available to those still in service; a contrary view would arbitrarily freeze entitlements at the date of initial absorption.
The State’s contention that the petitioner was governed exclusively by the 2016 policy was rejected. The Court also noted that the 17.12.2021 policy explicitly contemplated absorbed faculty being eligible for extension.

2) “Case-to-case” discretion does not authorize discrimination

While policies used the phrase “case-to-case,” the Court stressed this cannot become a shield for arbitrary differentiation among similarly situated employees.
The record showed that others similarly situated had been granted extension to 68 (Annexures P-17, P-22, P-24, P-25). The State supplied no adverse material against the petitioner to justify different treatment.
Therefore, the refusal to extend similar consideration to the petitioner was found to be discriminatory and unfair.

3) Litigation conduct: superannuation during pendency and without leave

The Court had stayed the 62-year retirement and relieving order in March 2022, enabling the petitioner to continue in service.
Despite the pending proceedings and the wider policy context (2021 and 2023 notifications permitting extension to 68), the State unilaterally issued a superannuation order at 65 on 06.03.2025 without seeking the Court’s leave.
The Court inferred an intention to frustrate the petitioner’s claim and held such conduct improper. Accordingly, it quashed the 06.03.2025 order and deemed continuity in service, neutralizing any “fait accompli.”

4) Public interest and institutional context

The State is facing serious faculty shortages across its government medical colleges, evidenced by National Medical Commission (NMC) penalties and the State’s own pleadings in related litigation. In SLBSGMC alone, 13 Professor posts and a total of 54 faculty positions were vacant.
Given these deficits, granting (or at least fairly considering) extension to experienced faculty directly serves medical education, patient care, and regulatory compliance.
The Court reminded the State of its obligations as a welfare State — to act fairly, transparently, and without bias.

Impact

This decision, approved for reporting, sets clear markers for future service and education governance disputes:

Uniform application of later policies: Where the State subsequently enhances extension age (here to 68), faculty still in service when the policy issues are entitled to be considered under it, irrespective of the policy in force at the time of their initial absorption.
Limits on “case-to-case” discretion: Authorities must provide cogent, recorded reasons to deny extension to one employee while granting it to peers. Bare reliance on “case-to-case” is insufficient and invites a finding of arbitrariness.
Process integrity during litigation: Employers may not unilaterally alter the service status of a litigant employee on the precise issue pending before the Court — without leave. Orders passed in that manner risk being quashed, with the Court deeming continuity to preserve substantive rights.
Clarified interface with extension/re-employment jurisprudence: The Court harmonizes the rule in Ravinder Nath (extension is for those in service) by ensuring the employee’s status is lawfully kept “in service” where the State’s contrary action is improper, thereby enabling consideration for extension up to 68.
Policy administration for medical colleges: In times of acute faculty shortage and regulatory scrutiny, this ruling encourages the State to adopt transparent, non-discriminatory criteria for extensions and to avoid litigation-driven “fait accompli” tactics.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Encadrement/Absorption: Movement of faculty from one institution/cadre to another, followed by their being placed permanently (absorbed) in the new institution’s cadre. Here, the petitioner was absorbed and promoted at SLBSGMC in 2017.
Extension vs Re-employment: “Extension” continues an existing service relationship beyond the normal retirement age; it is available only while the employee is still in service. “Re-employment” is a fresh contractual engagement after retirement. Different policies, criteria, and rights can apply.
Case-to-case basis: A policy phrase that allows the authority to exercise discretion, but only within legal bounds. Discretion must be guided by reason and parity; it cannot be arbitrary or discriminatory.
Leave of the Court: Permission required from the Court before making changes that affect the subject matter of pending litigation (especially where interim orders exist). Acting without leave can result in orders being nullified.
Deemed continuity in service: A legal fiction by which a court treats an employee as if they had continued in service, even if an employer purported to retire or terminate them. This preserves eligibility for benefits such as extension.
Welfare State principle: The expectation that the State, as an employer, acts fairly, transparently, and in the public interest — particularly in sectors like education and health.

Conclusion

This judgment establishes two pivotal norms in service law, particularly salient for medical education administration:

Uniform, non-discriminatory consideration under later extension policies: Faculty in service when enhanced extension policies issue must be given equal consideration, even if they were absorbed under earlier regimes. The State must justify any deviation with concrete reasons.
Protection against litigation-avoidance tactics: Superannuating an employee on the very issue sub judice — without the Court’s leave — will not be permitted to defeat substantive rights. Such orders will be quashed, and continuity may be deemed to ensure lawful consideration for extension.

While the Court stops short of granting the extension outright, it restores the legal landscape to a fair starting point: the petitioner is deemed to be in continuous service, and the State must now consider her for extension to 68 in parity with others, applying the criteria under the 2021 and 2023 policies. In an environment of chronic faculty shortages and heightened regulatory scrutiny, the decision powerfully reinforces administrative fairness, parity, and responsible litigation conduct.