Himachal Pradesh High Court
Joginder Pal vs . Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust & on 8 July, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
5 Joginder Pal Vs. Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust & .
Ors.
CWP No. 10810/2025 08.07.2025 Present: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. K.D. Sood, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bhupinder Pathania, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3.
CMP No.15335/2025
r to
Reply be filed within four weeks. List thereafter.
2. Heard.
3. The respondents have issued an office order on 21.02.2025 to the effect that petitioner serving as Lecturer in English, shall stand retired on 31.07.2025, on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years. Petitioner has raised a dispute that in view of Rule 12 of the First Ordinance of H.P. University, he will attain the age of superannuation at 60 years of age instead of 58 years. The petitioner has also placed reliance upon a judgment dated 27.09.2011 rendered in CWP No.2209/2009 (Dr. Devender Nath Kashyap Vs. Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust & Ors.).
4. Learned Senior Advocate for the respondents submits that the aforesaid decision was rendered in a case of Lecturer working in a private college, whereas the petitioner is serving as Lecturer in School cadre. Order dated 19.06.2023 passed in CMP No. 7207/2023 filed in CWP No. 3840/2023 (Devinder ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2025 21:29:09 :::CIS 6 Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.) has also been placed on record by the respondents. In the said order, the Hon'ble Division .
Bench, vide detailed reasoning had declined to consider the age of superannuation of the petitioner (therein) as 60 years.
Relevant para from the order reads as under: -
"CMP NO. 7207/20232. It is the contention of the applicant/petitioner that previously certain terms of employment of employees and working conditions of the employees of the Temple Trust were laid down vide order dt. 16.11.1991, in which the age of retirement of the employees of the Temple Trust was fixed as 60 years, but later in the year 2001, there was an amendment thereto and age of superannuation was modified as 58 years while granting CPF.
3. It is also his contention that certain recommendations were made on 22.11.2021 for restoring the age of superannuation as 60 years. The applicant/petitioner therefore, contends that in view of the said recommendations as well as similar interim orders granted as mentioned above, the applicant/petitioner should be permitted to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner also sought to contend that parity should be maintained between the petitioners in other cases and the petitioner in the instant case, and this Court cannot deny the same interim order to the applicant/petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court in Bir Bajrang Kumar vs. State of Bihar and others AIR 1987 SC 1345; Vishnu Traders vs. State of Haryana 1995 Supp (1) SCC 461 and State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Hirendra Pal Singh (2011) 5 SCC 305, in support of the said application.
6. Firstly, we are of the opinion that the subsisting Rule provides age of superannuation at the age of 58 years.
Without the said Rule being amended making the age of ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2025 21:29:09 :::CIS 7 superannuation as 60 years, prima facie, no right can be claimed by the applicant/petitioner to continue in service up .
to the age of 60 years.
7. If such interim order is granted permitting the applicant/petitioner to continue beyond the age of 58 years, prima facie, it would be contrary to the subsisting Rule.
8. That apart in the event the applicant/petitioner was to succeed in the writ petition, he would be entitled to wages/salary beyond the age of 58 years upto his attaining 60 years, though he has not worked for that period because he was prevented to work though he was interested to work beyond 58 years. So no irreparable injury would be caused to the petitioner.
9. Bir Bajrang Kumar's case (supra), is the case where two Writ Petitions were filed on the identical point and one was admitted by the Court, but other was dismissed. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that there are two contradictory judgments being recorded by High Court in same case. So it set aside the order dismissing the second petition and directed the High Court to reconsider it.
Such is not the case in the instant case, therefore, such judgment has no application.
10. As regards decision in Vishnu Traders vs. State of Haryana 1995 Supp (1) SCC 461, in paragraph 3 thereof, Hon'ble Supreme Court states as under:-
"3. In the matters of interlocutory orders, principle of binding precedents cannot be said to apply. However, the need for consistency of approach and uniformity in the exercise of judicial discretion respecting similar causes and the desirability to eliminate occasions for grievances of discriminatory treatment requires that all similar matters should receive similar treatment except where factual differences require a different treatment so that there is assurance of consistency, uniformity, predictability and certainty of judicial approach."
11. The very first sentence in paragraph 3 above points out that principle of binding precedents would not apply in the matters of interlocutory orders.
::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2025 21:29:09 :::CIS 812. Though, in later part of said paragraph, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did say that similar matters .
should receive similar treatment, since, we are of the opinion that the reasoning given by the previous Division Bench in cases mentioned above granting the relief of continuity in service beyond 58 years i.e. the State, as regards monetary benefits was relying on the earlier Rule which gives only EPF; that the current Rule entitles the petitioner to CPF; and so the employee should be entitled to be continued in service, does not appeal to us prima facie because the said reasoning ignores the principle that an employee could not get a benefit of retiring at age of 60 years contrary to the subsisting Rule, which prescribes 58 years as age of superannuation. So we are not inclined to grant interim relief which was given in other cases.
13. In the decision in Hirendra Pal Singh's case (supra), the Supreme Court observed that cases involving identical points, must be given identical treatment by the Court, otherwise, it may create an anomalous position, as there may be a possibility of contradictory orders being rendered in similar types of cases by the same Court. But these observations were made in context of grant of stay of order of the High Court of Allahabad staying operation of amended provisions of U.P Legal Remembrancer's Manual, which latter order, the Supreme Court did not agree with.
14. Having regard to the reasoning assigned by us earlier, we do not deem it appropriate to grant same interim relief as was done in other cases. Therefore CMP No. 7207 of 2023 is dismissed"
5. Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12383/2023 instituted against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 30.06.2023.::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2025 21:29:09 :::CIS 9
6. In view of above, this application seeking continuation in service till the age of 60 years cannot be .
allowed. Accordingly, the application to stand disposed of with the observation that petitioner's retirement shall abide by the outcome of the writ petition.
8th July, 2025 (rohit)
to Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Judge
::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2025 21:29:09 :::CIS