IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.16736 of 2024 Decided on: 10th January, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Kamla Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Suresh Singh Saini, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to allow him to continue in service till he 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, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondents. Petitioner’s contends that in view of law laid down in CWP No. 2274 of 2021 (Satya Devi versus State of H.P. and others), decided along with connected 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 matters on 28.5.2024, she is entitled to continue to serve with the respondents till she attains the age of 60 years, i.e 30.4.2025, whereas, the respondents have retired her on 29.4.2023 at the age of 58 years. Let the learned Additional Advocate General to have instructions in the matter specifically as to whether the case of the petitioner is covered under the aforesaid judgment. List on 10.01.2025.” 3. Respondents in their instructions dated 7.1.2025 have not disputed that the case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid decision in Satya Devi’s case(supra), therefore, there shall be a direction to the respondents to confer the benefit of the aforesaid decision to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be re-inducted in service forthwith and shall be allowed to continue to serve till her attaining the age of 60 years. This shall however be subject to outcome of SLP filed by the respondents in the aforesaid decision. The present writ petition is disposed in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge January 10, 2025 veena 2