RAJBIR SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA & Anr.

Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG Haryana. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (Oral)

#1. This Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned action/order dated 13.05.2022 (Annexure P-4), whereby the petitioner's legitimate claim for grant of extension in service for a period of two years beyond the age of superannuation has been denied/substituted. A further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the petitioner the benefit of incentive in the form of extension in service up to the age of 60 CWP-20315-2026 2 years, as admissible under the State Teacher Award Revised Policy, 2020 (Annexure P-2), in view of his selection in the State Teachers Award-2021 list dated 25.08.2022 (Annexure P-5). The petitioner has also sought a declaration that the amended State Teachers Award Policy dated 13.05.2022 (Annexure P-4) cannot be applied retrospectively to his case, as he had applied for and was conferred the State Teacher Award for the vacancy year 2020-2021 under the State Teacher Award Revised Policy, 2020 (Annexure P-2).

#2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was appointed as Science Master on 08.11.1991 and became eligible to apply for the State Teacher Award-2021 under the State Award to Teachers (Revised Policy-2020) dated 14.09.2020 (Annexure P-2), which, under Clause 5, provided the benefit of extension in service for two years beyond the age of superannuation. Pursuant to the applications invited on

15.07.2021 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner applied within the prescribed time. It is further submitted that although the awards for the vacancy year 2020-21 were scheduled to be conferred on 05.09.2021, the ceremony was delayed on account of the COVID-19 pandemic. During the intervening period, the State issued an amended policy dated 13.05.2022 (Annexure P-4), deleting the benefit of two years' extension in service. Thereafter, vide order dated 25.08.2022 (Annexure P-5), the petitioner was declared a CWP-20315-2026 3 recipient of the State Teacher Award-2021 and was conferred the award on

05.09.2022.

2.1. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner's entitlement is governed by the State Award to Teachers (Revised Policy-2020), which was in force when he applied for the award, and the subsequent amendment dated 13.05.2022 cannot be applied retrospectively to deprive him of the vested benefit of two years' extension in service. It is, thus, submitted that the respondents have illegally denied the petitioner the benefit of extension in service up to the age of 60 years, despite his retirement being due on

30.09.2026.

#4. Notice of motion. Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. He submits that the petitioner cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate in the same breath, as, on the one hand, he accepted the enhanced cash incentive under the amended State Teacher Award Policy dated 13.05.2022 (Annexure P-4) without any demur or protest, and, on the other hand, seeks to challenge the very policy after having availed its benefits. It is contended that having accepted the benefits flowing from the amended policy, the petitioner is estopped from questioning the validity or applicability of the same. CWP-20315-2026 4

#5. It is further submitted that extension in service beyond the age of superannuation is neither an accrued nor a vested right and can only be claimed if specifically provided under the policy governing the field on the relevant date and further contends that an employee has no vested or fundamental right to continue in service beyond the prescribed age of superannuation and that the employer is competent to amend the conditions governing retirement and service incentives in the absence of any accrued or vested right.

#6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record with their able assistance, this Court finds that the petitioner seeks extension in service solely on the strength of the State Award to Teachers (Revised Policy-2020) dated 14.09.2020 (Annexure P-2), wherein Clause 5 contemplated extension in service for a period of two years beyond the age of superannuation. However, before the conferment of the award, the said policy stood amended vide notification dated 13.05.2022 (Annexure P-4), whereby the incentive of extension in service was withdrawn and, in lieu thereof, the amount of cash incentive payable to the awardees was enhanced. The State Teacher Award-2021 was thereafter conferred upon the petitioner on 05.09.2022 strictly in terms of the amended policy. It is not disputed that the petitioner accepted the enhanced monetary incentive under the amended policy without raising any objection. Having consciously CWP-20315-2026 5 accepted the benefits flowing from the amended policy, the petitioner cannot now selectively seek enforcement of a benefit which stood withdrawn under the very same policy. Such a course is impermissible in law.

#7. Moreover, the claim for extension in service cannot be equated with a vested or accrued right. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kashmiri Lal Sharma vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. and another, 2025 IN SC 472, and K. Nagaraj and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, (1985) 1 SCC 523, has categorically held that an employee has no fundamental or vested right regarding the age of retirement and that alteration of the service conditions relating to superannuation is within the competence of the employer. The relevant observations read as under:- "...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.(3) In K. Nagaraj and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, (1985) 1 SCC 523, a three-Judge Bench of this Court upheld reduction of the age of retirement from 58 years to 55 years. While doing so, this Court observed that "it is not possible to lay down an inflexible rule that 58 years is a reasonable age for retirement and 55 is not. If the policy adopted for the time CWP-20315-2026 6 being by the Government or the Legislature is shown to violate recognized norms of employment planning, it would be possible to say that the policy is irrational since, in that event, it would not bear reasonable nexus with the object which it seeks to achieve. But such is not the case here."

7.1. The aforesaid principle squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Since extension in service is only an incentive flowing from the policy and not a vested statutory right, the petitioner cannot insist upon enforcement of a provision which had already ceased to exist before the conferment of the award.

#8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish any enforceable legal or vested right to claim extension in service up to the age of 60 years. Once the policy dated 14.09.2020 stood amended prior to the conferment of the award and the petitioner admittedly accepted the benefits available under the amended policy without any protest, he is estopped from claiming the withdrawn benefit of extension in service. The judgments relied upon by the respondents fully support the proposition that no employee possesses a vested right to continue in service beyond the prescribed age of superannuation and the conditions governing such extension are always subject to the policy prevailing on the relevant date. CWP-20315-2026 7

#9. Consequently, this Court finds no illegality, arbitrariness or perversity in the impugned action/order dated 13.05.2022 (Annexure P-4) warranting interference in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

#10. Accordingly, the present writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

#11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

08.07.2026 parul verma (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Yes/No Whether Reportable. :