2025:HHC:4181 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMP(M) No.2127 of 2024 in LPA No.63 of 2025 Decided on: 28th February, 2025 __________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ...Applicants-Appellants Versus Bindra Devi …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? For Appellants: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) CMP(M) No.2127 of 2024 in LPA No.63 of 2025 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, delay of only one day in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:4181 - 2 - disposed of. The appeal be registered. LPA No.63 of 2025 2. Present appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge passed in CWP No.11200 of 2024 titled as Bindra Devi Versus State of HP & Ors., wherein the learned Single Judge quashed the order dated 31.12.2023 [Annexure P-2] and directed the State to continue the petitioner in service till she attains the age of 60 years. 3. Vide the said order, the employee who is a Class-IV working in the Civil Hospital Sundarnagar, District Mandi, had been retired on the said date. Learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition in view of the fact that the matter was covered by the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in CWP No.2274 of 2024 titled as Satya Devi vs. State of H.P. & Ors. alongwith connected matters, decided on 28.05.2024. 2025:HHC:4181 - 3 - 4. The said benefit was granted on account of quashing of Notification dated 21.02.2018 by the Division Bench earlier, which provided that those Class-IV employees engaged prior to 10.05.2001 were to be retired after attaining the age of 60 years and those Class-IV employees engaged after 10.05.2001 were to be retired after attaining the age of 58 years and thus on the ground of discrimination. 5. It is not disputed that SLP (Civil) No.20496 of 2024 is pending before the Apex Court. However, there is no interim order passed in the said SLP. Learned Counsel for the State has tried to place reliance upon another SLP filed before the Apex Court, bearing No.2668 of 2025, titled as H.P. Vidhan Sabha Versus Bhagwan Singh, whereby the operation of the impugned order dated 01.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge was stayed. The said interim order dated 07.02.2025 passed in the said SLP by the Apex Court as such would not give any help to the State, since in that case the interim order 2025:HHC:4181 - 4 - has been passed by learned Single Judge which had been taken by the State to the Apex Court as the learned Single Judge had directed to take back the employee, during pendency of the writ petition. 6. In the present case, as noticed above, the main writ petition has been decided on the strength of judgment which has been passed by the Coordinate Bench. We have gone through the said decision and in the absence of any interim order passed in SLP No.20496 of 2024, we do not find any reason to take a different view as such also in favour of an employer. It would only benefit the State on payment of wages if she 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. 7. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that being bound by the judgment of the Coordinate Bench, there is no scope taking a different view on account of absence of any interim order being 2025:HHC:4181 - 5 - passed in the SLP. 8. Resultantly, we dismiss the present appeal alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge February 28, 2025 (Bhardwaj/Chiranjeev)