2025:HHC:21889 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10961 of 2025 Date of Decision: July 9, 2025 ______________________________________________________________ Sudershna Devi ... Petitioner Versus State of HP and others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate.. For the respondents Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J (Oral) Through instant petition, petitioner seeks benefit of the decision rendered in judgment passed in CWP No. 2274 of 2024 titled as Satya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. decided on 28.05.2024. 2. Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and accepts service of notice on behalf of respondents-State. Mr. Kahol, states that since judgment passed in Satya Devi’s case has been stayed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20496 of 2024, relief, as prayed for, in the instant petition cannot be allowed. Copy of an order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 24.03.2025 in several connected Special Leave Petitions, with lead case being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 11306 of 2025 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. 2025:HHC:21889 - 2 - Inder Pal, has been made available to this Court during proceedings of the case and same reads as under:- “(1) Delay condoned. (2) Let the notice be issued to the respondents(s) in all the matters. (3) Tag alongwith SPL(C) No. 20496 of 2024 (4) In the meantime the operation of the impugned order(s), is/are stayed.” 3. Since it is quite apparent from the aforesaid order that mandate contained in the judgment passed in Satya Devi alongwith connected matters has been stayed, prayer made in the instant petition cannot be allowed, but with the consent of parties, petition at hand is disposed of with a direction that benefits, if any, flowing to the petitioner under Satya Devi shall abide by the outcome of the Inder Pal’s case instituted by the respondents against the common judgment rendered in Satya Devi’s case. 4. Ordered accordingly. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 5. Since during proceedings of this case, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that in some of similar cases, decided earlier, petitioners who have completed 58 years of age but not completed 60 years, but stand superannuated, are approaching the respondent-State seeking re-instatement on the strength of such orders, however, it was never the intent of this Court to order reinstatement of such, petitioners/employees. 6. Therefore, it is ordered that in all such cases, no petitioner/employee shall be reinstated in service, in case, he/she stands superannuated. Their service benefits shall abide by the decision which may be rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Inder Pal (SLP(C) Diary No. 2025:HHC:21889 - 3 - 11306/2025, in which the judgment passed by this Court in Satya Devi’s case has been stayed on 24.3.2025. 7. A copy of this order be supplied to Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, for bringing this order to the notice of Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, for compliance. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 9, 2025 (Vikrant)