( 2025:HHC:34327 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMP(M) No.1298 of 2025 and LPA No. 699 of 2025 Decided on: 8th October, 2025 Temple Officer, Temple Trust, Shri Jawalamukhi .......applicant/appellant versus Prabal Kumar and others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S.Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant: Mr.Deepak Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.2 to 4. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) CMP(M) No.1298/2025 and LPA No. 699/2025 The challenge in the present appeal, which is barred by 72 days, is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.6763 of 2025, decided on 30.04.2025, whereby the directions of the learned Single Judge was that in view of the Rules and Regulations formulated by the Himachal Pradesh University, the present appellant cannot retire a Teacher at the age of 58 years, 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2025:HHC:34327 ) 2 rather, a Teacher is required to be permitted to work till the age of 60 years. 2. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.1635 of 2019 titled as Veena Kumari vs. State of H.P and others, decided on 05.08.2021 which is also appended along-with the Writ Petition as Annexure P-9, to grant the said relief while noticing that once the factum with regard to giving officiating charge of the post of Principal in college to the writ petitioner is not in dispute, he cannot be retired at the age of 58 years. 3. The writ petitioner had challenged the order dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure P-5), whereby the writ petitioner along- with other employees was to be retired on 30.04.2025. Resultantly, reliance was placed upon the appendix ‘A’, Chapter XXXVIII, Paragraph 38.5B(d) part 1, that 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. 4. Perusal of the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Veena Kumari’s case would go on to show that it ( 2025:HHC:34327 ) 3 has also placed reliance on various other judgments, reiterating the said position while granting the benefit of continuing in service till the age of 60 years or till the end of the current academic session. The relevant part reads as under:- “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 ( 2025:HHC:34327 ) 4 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. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant has not disputed the factual position that the said case also pertained to the same appellant namely, Shri Jawalamukhi Temple Trust. It is in such circumstances, the argument which is raised that the bye-laws of 2002, which provided the retirement at the age of 58 years, which was also the stand of the appellant in the said case before the learned Single Judge, was repelled by the learned Single Judge in the judgment which is sought to be challenged. 6. Thus, the learned Single Judge was bound by the judgment in Veena Kumari’s case passed by a Division Bench of this Court on the principle of precedents. Once the judgment passed in Veena Kumari’s case has not been challenged and the reference has been made to the various judgments, including the judgment passed in LPA No.45 of 2013 titled as Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust vs. Karam Singh Rana and LPA No.51 of 2013 titled as Shri Shakti Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya vs. Rattneshwar Jha, nothing ( 2025:HHC:34327 ) 5 has been brought to our notice that the Apex Court has varied the said order. 7. Accordingly, the view which has been taken by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference, from which we do not wish to deviate in the present facts and circumstances. 8. Resultantly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed, in view of the averments made. However, the appeal is dismissed on merits in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) October 08, 2025 Judge (naveen)