IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.16740 of 2024 Decided on: 10 January, 2025 _______________________________________________________________ __ Kashmiri Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _______________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, 1 Whether approved for reporting? _______________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Vinay Mehta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to allow her to continue in service till she attains the age of 60 years in light of law laid down in Satya Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others2. 2. Noticing the contention of the petitioner, following order was passed in the matter on 01.01.2025: - “Notice. Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. Petitioner’s contention is that 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 CWP No.2274 of 2021, decided alongwith connected matters on 28.05.2024. her case is covered under the decision rendered in in CWP No.2274 of 2021 (Satya Devi Versus State of H.P. and others) decided on 28.5.2024 along with 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 31.01.2027. 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 31.01.2025. 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 Staya Devi (supra) or not. Instructions be obtained by the next date. List on 10.01.2025.” 3. Respondents in their instructions dated 09.01.2025 have not disputed that the case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid decision in Satya Devi’s case, therefore, there shall be a direction to the respondents to confer the benefit of the aforesaid decision to the petitioner and allow her to continue in 2 service till she 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 present petition is disposed in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge January 10, 2025 veena 3