IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10700 of 2025 Decided on: 7th July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rakesh Kumari …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. Petitioner’s grievance is to the office order dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure P-4), whereby respondent No.3-the Deputy Director Higher Education, Kangra at Dharamshala rejected her representation for considering her case in light 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 of law laid down in Satya Devi Versus State of H.P. and others2. 3. It appears that the petitioner had preferred CWP No.268 of 2025 seeking directions to the respondents to let her continue in service alongwith consequential benefits till the age of 60 years in terms of Satya Devi2. The said writ petition was disposed of on 06.01.2025 with direction to the respondents to consider and decide petitioner’s representation in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the respondents passed the impugned order on 21.05.2025, rejecting her representation for the following reason:- “And whereas, the petitioner got retired 31.12.2017 and filed petition on dated 02.01.2025. That is after more than 8 years after retirement. Now therefore, representation of the petitioner Smt. Rakesh Kumari is rejected in accordance with the Judgement passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of CWP No.8503 of 2024 Sita Ram Vs State of H.P. & Ors.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made available a copy of the decision rendered in Sita Ram Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others3. The aforesaid decision was made the basis for rejecting petitioner’s case. Sita Ram3 was a writ petition instituted by an employee seeking compensation equal to the emoluments, which he would have received had he been allowed to continue to 2 CWP No.2274 of 2021, decided alongwith connected matters on 28.05.2024 3 CWP No.8503 of 2024, decided on 07.11.2024 3 serve till the age of 60 years alongwith consequential retiral benefits. The said writ petition was dismissed as under:- “3. This Court is of the considered view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present case. This is for the reason that the petitioner was superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years on 31.08.2015. He has approached this Court in the month of August, 2024. In terms of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, even in service matters, the relief of arrears has to be restricted by the Court to a period preceding 3 years as from the date of the filing of the writ petition. Now, this writ petition has been filed on 20.08.2024. Three years preceding 20.08.2024 take us to 21.08.2021. Admittedly, the petitioner is not claiming any dues, which were payable to him either on 21.08.2021 or thereafter. The dues, which he is claiming were due to him in between August, 2015 to August, 2017. As this period does not fall within 3 years as from the date of the filing of the writ petition, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 4. At this stage, this Court would like to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others versus Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 Supreme Court Case 648, in which judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring to its earlier judgment in Shiv Dass versus Union of India, (2007) 9 SCC 274, has been pleased to hold that the High Court will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears to a period of 3 years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.” Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No.49 of 2025 was preferred by Sh. Sita Ram against the aforesaid decision. In the aforesaid LPA, Hon’ble Division Bench after taking note of the pendency of Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Apex Court against Satya Devi2, has been pleased to admit the LPA on 09.05.2025. The decision in Sita Ram3 has no bearing for considering the case of the petitioner in light of law laid down in Satya Devi2, of course, such consideration 4 shall abide by the outcome of Special Leave Petitions filed by the respondent-State including State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Inder Pal4. 5. Hence, the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure P-4) is quashed and set aside. The writ petition is disposed of with direction that benefits, if any, flowing to the petitioner under Satya Devi’s2 case, shall abide by the outcome of Inder Pal’s4 case instituted by the respondents against the common judgment rendered in Satya Devi’s2 case. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 07, 2025 Judge Mukesh 4 Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.11306/2025