1 ( 2025:HHC:9048 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMP(M) No.131 of 2025 & LPA No. 139 of 2025 Date of Decision: April 2, 2025 State of H.P & another …Appellants Versus Paras Ram ..Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants: Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocate General, alongwith Mr.Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent: Nemo. Vivek Singh Thakur, J. CMP(M) No. 131 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, the delay of 5o days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. Appeal be registered. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:9048 ) LPA No.139 of 2025 2. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 25.07.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 7198 of 2024, whereby the writ petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to continue the petitioner in service till he attains the age of 60 years. The said order was passed on the basis of judgment dated 28.05.2024, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2274 of 2021, Satya Devi Vs. State of H.P. & others. 3. Counsel for the State has tried to distinguish the said case as such on the ground that the writ petitioner was engaged on daily waged basis on 01.01.2013. Apparently, his services were regularized on 25.11.2020 and thereafter, he was superannuated on 30.04.2024. On account of the judgment passed in Satya Devi’s case, supra, he approached this Court and the writ petition was allowed at the first instance. 4. Learned State Counsel has objected to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the respondents were not given an opportunity to file reply to the writ petition. 5. It is not disputed that SLP (Civil) No.20496 of 2024 is pending before the Apex Court. Keeping in view the principle and law laid down by this Court in the Satya Devi’s case (supra) that a Class-IV employee is entitled to continue in service till he/she attains the age of 60 years, we are of the considered 3 ( 2025:HHC:9048 ) opinion that the State is not entitled to take a different stand in the absence of any stay granted in the aforesaid SLP. 6. In similar circumstances, Division Bench of this High Court dismissed LPA No. 63 of 2025, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & others vs. Bindra Devi, on 28.02.2025; and CMP(M) No.2091 & LPA No.111 of 2025, titled as State of H.P. and others vs. Puran Chand, on 22.03.2025. 7. Otherwise also, it would only benefit the State on payment of wages if the petitioner 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. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed alongwith pending application(s), if any. (Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge. (Ranjan Sharma), Judge. April 2, 2025 (Purohit)