IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4897 of 2025 Date of Decision: 03.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Jai Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Chaman Negi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to retire the petitioner only after having completed the age of 60 years with all consequential benefits,like arrear of pay, increments, seniority etc., as is being done in case of other Class-IV employees of the State, who are similarly situated to the petitioner. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service till attaining the age of 60 years i.e., 31.07.2025, with all consequential benefits. (iii) That the respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to decide the representation dated 20.02.2025, Annexure P-3, within the time bound manner.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Before reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case her pending representation dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure P-3) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2274 of 2021, titled as Satya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, along with connected matters, in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity 3 of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Satya Devi case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 03, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)