1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.18942 of 2025 Decided on: 03.12.2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mast Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “a) To direct the respondents by way of issuance of Writ of Mandamus to quash the memorandum dated 04.11.2019 and restore the notification dated 29.03.2013 by including categories of other disabled persons to grant benefit of enhancement of retirement from 58 to 60 years to the petitioner. b) To extend the benefit of retirement age from 58 to 60 years to the petitioner being a locomotor disabled person alongwith all other consequential benefits and arrears of pay, promotion etc. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 c) That the respondents may be directed to consider the detailed representation dated 26.09.2025 of the petitioner in view of the Bhupinder Singh and Krishan Chand’s case (supra) during the pendency of the writ petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner endevoured to contend that impugned memorandum dated 04.11.2019 issued by the respondents withdrawing the enhancement of age of retirement for specially abled employees from 60 years to 58 years was bad in eyes of law. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. The validity of office memorandum dated 04.11.2019 had been questioned in Ses Ram versus State of H.P and others.2 The question before the Hon’ble Division Bench in Ses Ram2 was as under:- “Office memorandum dated 29.03.2013 enhancing the retirement age of the Blind Government Employees from 58 years to 60 years has been withdrawn by the State vide office memorandum dated 04.11.2019. Aggrieved against this withdrawal, all these petitions have been preferred laying challenge to the office memorandum dated 04.11.2019. Being connected and involving the same issue, all these petitions are taken up together for disposal.” The writ petitions were dismissed holding that OM dated 29.03.2013 was issued by the State in exercise of its Administrative/ Executive Power. There was no legal 2 CWP No.851/2020, decided on 31.07.2022 a/w connected matters. 3 embargo upon the respondents-State to withdraw the same by subsequently, issuing another office memorandum on 04.11.2019. The administrative or executive power of respondents-State to issue OM dated 04.11.2019 cannot be questioned. Portion from the decision relevant to the context is extracted hereinafter:- "3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 3(i) At the outset, it may be noticed that OM dated 29.03.2013 was issued by State in exercise of its Administrative/Executive Power. Therefore, there was no legal embargo upon the respondents/State to withdraw the same by subsequently issuing another office memorandum on 04.11.2019. The administrative or executive power of the respondents/State to issue OM dated 04.11.2019 cannot be questioned. 3(iv) It is well settled that in order for executive instructions to have the force of statutory rules, t must be shown that they have been issued either under the authority conferred on the State Government by some statute or under some provision of the constitution providing therefore. In the instant case the Oms in question have not been issued either under the authority conferred on the State Government by some statute or under some provision of the constitution, therefore, it has to be held in the nature of administrative instructions and not statutory rules. Petitioners have no vested right to remain in Government employment upto the age of 60 years. Their entitlement to continue upto the age of 60 years was only under OM dated 29.03.2013, which stands withdrawn vide office OM dated 04.11.2019. Both the office memorandums were issued by the State in exercise of its administrative power. In (2004)1 SCC 592, titled Sureshchandra Singh and others versus 4 Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd and other, Hon’ble Apex Court held that the Courts cannot issue a writ for enforcement of administrative instruction and that office memorandums are only administrative directions not having force of law. 3(v) Petitioner cannot insist for continuing in service upto the age of 60 years on the strength of OM dated 29.03.2013. This OM dd not create any right much- less any vested right in thier favour. It cannot be enforced in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. More so when this OM has been withdrawn by the State by issuing another OM. The respondents/State had the power to issue the OM as well as the power to withdraw it later by issuing another OM. It has not demonstrated before us that OM issued on 04.11.2019 was unconstitutional.” The Office memorandum dated 04.11.2019 also came up for consideration before Hon’ble Apex Court in Kashmiri Lal Sharma versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & another.3 Following issues were framed for consideration in Kashmiri Lal Sharma3:- I) Whether the benefit of extension of retirement age for the physically disabled category could be confined to persons with visual impairment as provided in the OM dated 29.03.2013 or it should be available to persons suffering from all such disabilities as are specified in the 1995 Act and the 2016 Act? II) Whether such extension could be withdrawn as was done by the OM dated 04.11.2017? If yes, then what would be its effect on the claim of the appellant? While deciding issue No.2, the Hon’ble Apex Court held “consequently, the OM dated 04.11.2019 cannot 3 SLP (C) Nos.1091-1092/2023, decided on 03.04.2025 5 be faulted for lack of competence. Otherwise also, an employee has no fundamental right as regards the age at which he would retire. Moreover, termination of service of an employee on account of reaching the age of superannuation in accordance with law or rules regulating the conditions of service does not amount to his removal from service within the meaning of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.” 5. In view of above, relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted to him as the issue has already been decided against him in Ses Ram2 and Kashmiri Lal Sharma3. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 03, 2025 Judge yogesh