IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15526 of 2024 Decided on: 9th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ramesh Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to allow him to continue in service till his 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 18.12.2024:- “CWP No.15526/2024 & CMP No.24830/2024 Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondents. Petitioner contends that in view of the law laid down in CWP No. 2274 of 2021 (Satya Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others) and connected matters, he is entitled to 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 serve with the respondents till he attains the age of 60 years, i.e., 28.2.2027, whereas, the respondents are going to retire him on 28.2.2025, on his attaining the age of 58 years. Let learned Deputy 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 4.1.2025.” 3. Respondents in their instructions dated 02.01.2025 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 and allow him to continue in service till he attains 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 09, 2025 Judge Mukesh