IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7314 of 2024 Decided on: 5th May, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kalawati …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. C.N. Singh and Mr. Devender Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ of Mandamus/Certiorari Or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 20.06.2024 (Annexure P.8) for all intents and purposes. ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus Or other appropriate writ, order or direction by directing the respondents department to treat the retirement age of the petitioner as 30.06.2026 i.e. 60 years in terms of the judgment dated 28.05.2024 in CWP No. 2274/2021 title Satya Devi Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors and allow her to join back and continue on the job, for all intents and purpose. iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus Or other appropriate writ, order or direction by directing the respondents department to pay the salary to petitioner w.e.f. 1.07.2024 till the joining back in service in terms of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court (Supra). 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 iv) Issue a writ of Certiorari, Mandamus Or other appropriate writ, order or direction by directing the respondents department to grant of Work Charge Status/Regularization to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2013 with all consequential benefits and arrear on account of retrospective grant of work charge status/regularization may kindly be ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner along with 12 % interest. vi) Cost of the writ petition may be awarded in favour of the Petitioner in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil)Diary No. 30326/2023 title The Special Land Acquisition Officer Versus Vithal Rao as well as in SLP (Civil) No.3398/2024 titled State of Rajasthan & Ors Versus Gopal Bijawat, for dragging the petitioner into the unnecessary litigation contrary to the litigation policy framed by the respondents department.” 2. Pursuant to the interim order passed in this petition on 29.07.2024, operation of the impugned office order dated 20.06.2024 (Annexure P-8), that retired the petitioner at the age of 58 years, was ordered to be stayed. The respondents were directed to permit the petitioner to continue to function as Class-IV employee till the age of 60 years. 3. So far as reliefs No.(i) to (iii) are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is covered by the decision rendered in Satya Devi Versus State of H.P. and others2. It is a matter of the record that the aforesaid decision in Satya Devi’s2 case has been stayed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide interim order dated 24.03.2025 2 CWP No.2274 of 2021, decided alongwith connected matters on 28.05.2024 3 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.11306/2025 (State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Inder Pal). In view of above, reliefs No.(i) to (iii) claimed by the petitioner on the strength of the decision rendered in Satya Devi2, shall abide by the outcome of aforesaid Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.11306/2025. 4. Insofar as petitioner’s prayer for grant of work charge status is concerned, learned counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that the said issue is now covered by the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Versus Surajmani & Anr.3. The respondent-Department was also the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in some of the connected matters. Learned counsel for the parties also submit that this writ petition be disposed of in terms of the directions issued in the aforesaid decision. 5. In view of the stand taken by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of work charge status in accordance with law laid down in Surajmani2 and pass 3 Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, decided alongwith connected civil appeals on 06.02.2025 4 appropriate order in accordance with law within six weeks from today. Copy of the order so passed, be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 05, 2025 Judge Mukesh