IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15920/2024 Decided on: 07.01.2025 Prem Lata …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J 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 judgment dated 28.05.2024, rendered in CWP No. 2274 of 2021 (Satya Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others) and connected matters. 2. Noticing the contention of the petitioner, following order was passed in the matter on 23.12.2024:- “Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondents. Petitioner contends that in view of law laid down in CWP No. 2274 of 2021 (Satya Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others) and connected matters, she is entitled to serve with the respondents till she attains the age of 60 years i.e. 28.02.2027, whereas, the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 respondents are going to retire her on 28.02.2025, on her attaining the age 58 years. Let learned Additional Advocate General to have instruction in the matter, specifically as to whether the case of the petitioner is covered under the aforesaid judgment. List on 07.01.2025. ” 3. Respondents in their instructions dated 04.01.2025 have not disputed that the case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid decision in Satya Devi’s case. In view of the instructions placed by the respondents, there is no necessity for calling of the reply. Taking note of the instructions, there shall be a direction to the respondents to confer the benefit of the aforesaid decision to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner, who is presently continuing in service 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 being filed by the respondents in the aforesaid decision. The present petition is disposed in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 07th January, 2025(rohit)