1 2025:HHC:7415 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMP(M) No. 2091 of 2024 & LPA No. 111 of 2025 Date of decision: 22.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ State of H.P. & others …..Appellant Versus Puran Chand …Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the Appellants: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Pranay Pratap Singh, Mr. Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) CMP (M) No. 2096 of 2024 Keeping in view the averments made in the application duly supported by an affidavit, we are of the opinion that sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. Therefore, the delay of 56 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 LPA No. 111 of 2025 2. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 31.07.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 7268 of 2024, whereby the writ petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to continue the petitioner in service till he attains the age of 60 years. The said order was passed on the basis of judgment dated 28.05.2024, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2274 of 2021, Satya Devi Vs. State of H.P. & others. 3. Counsel for the State has tried to distinguish the said case as such on the ground that the writ petitioner was appointed on contract basis on 25.04.2007. Apparently, his services were regularized on 10.10.2014 and thereafter, he was superannuated on 31.01.2024. On account of the judgment passed in Satya Devi’s case, supra, he approached this Court and the writ petition was allowed at the first instance. 4. Learned State Counsel has objected to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on the 3 ground that the respondents were not given an opportunity to file reply to the writ petition. 5. It is not disputed that SLP (Civil) No.20496 of 2024 is pending before the Apex Court. Keeping in view the principle and law laid down by this Court in the Satya Devi’s case (supra) that a Class-IV employee is entitled to continue in service till he/she attains the age of 60 years, we are of the considered opinion that the State is not entitled to take a different stand in the absence of any stay granted in the aforesaid SLP. In similar circumstances, we have dismissed LPA No. 63 of 2025, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & others vs. Bindra Devi, on 28.02.2025. Otherwise also, it would only benefit the State on payment of wages if the petitioner performs the duty and in case the SLP is dismissed, the State would not have to give equivalent amount without taking work from the employee in question. 4 6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed alongwith pending application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. March 22, 2025 (Ranjan Sharma) (hemlata) Judge.