IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15706/2024 Decided on: 07.01.2025 Tarsem Kumari …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan, 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 20.12.2024:- “ Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner’s contention is that her case is covered under the decision rendered in CWP No.2274/2021 (Satya Devi Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.) decided on 28.05.2024 along with 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 connected matters and in terms of this decision, the petitioner is entitled to the benefits flowing from the above decision and also liable to serve with the respondents till her attaining the age of 60 years, which she will attain on 28.02.2027. 3. Petitioner's grievance is that the respondents are not extending the benefit of judgment to her and bent upon to retire her on her attaining the age of 58 years on 28.02.2025. 4. In view of above, let learned Additional Advocate General have instructions from respondents, as to whether the case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid decision in Satya Devi (supra) or not. Instructions be obtained by the next date. 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)