IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14554 of 2024 Decided on: 10th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeevan Lata …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Happy Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to allow her to continue in service till her attaining the age of 60 years in light of law laid down in Satya Devi Versus State of H.P. and others2. 2. Noticing the contention of the petitioner, following order was passed in the matter on 09.12.2024:- “CWP No.14554/2024 & CMP No.23379/2024 Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondents. Petitioner’s, contention is that she has wrongfully been retired on 30.04.2024 at the age of 58 years, whereas, she is entitled to continue in service till she 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 CWP No.2274 of 2021, decided alongwith connected matters on 28.05.2024 2 attains the age of 60 years i.e. 30.04.2026 in light of judgment dated 28.05.2024 rendered in CWP No.2274 of 2021 (Satya Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others) and connected matters. Let learned Additional Advocate General to have instruction in the matter. List on 27.12.2024.” 3. Respondents in their instructions dated 09.01.2025 have not disputed that the case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid decision in Satya Devi’s2 case. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the respondents to confer the benefit of the aforesaid decision to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be re-inducted in service forthwith and shall be allowed to continue to serve till her attaining 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 January 10, 2025 Judge Mukesh