Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 10820 (HP)

INDRA DEVI v. STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER

CWP/3552/2024 · 2025-01-07

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3552 of 2024 Date of decision: 07.01.2025 Indra Devi. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. P.K. Verma, Advocate, vice Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Apprehending her retirement at the age of 58 years, which the petitioner was to attain on 30.09.2024, the petitioner instituted this writ petition seeking the benefit of the decision rendered in Satya Devi vs. State of H.P. & Ors1. 2. Vide order dated 26.06.2024 passed in this case, the respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to continue to serve till she attains the age of 60 years. Such direction was subject to further clarification by this Court. 1CWP No.2274 of 2021, decided along with connected matters on 28.05.2024 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- 3. Following order was passed in the matter on 11.11.2024:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been re-engaged pursuant to interim order dated 26.06.2024. Respondents have not filed the reply. No instructions are available on the case record, as to whether the case of the petitioner is covered in terms of the decision rendered in CWP No.2274 of 2021 (Satya Devi vs. State of H.P. & Ors.). Learned Deputy Advocate General prays for and is allowed a week’s further time to have instructions. List thereafter.” 4. Respondents in their instructions dated 20.11.2024 have not disputed that the case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid decision in Satya Devi’s1 case. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the respondents to confer the benefit of the aforesaid decision to the petitioner and allow her to continue in service till she attains the age of 60 years. This, shall, however, be subject to outcome of the SLP filed by the respondents in the aforesaid decision. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 7th January, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)