2025:HHC:3079 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.454 of 2025 Decided on: 24th February, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kishani Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge 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 Satya Devi Versus State of H.P. and others2. 2. Noticing the contention of the petitioner, following order was passed in the matter on 07.01.2025:- “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 connected matters 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 CWP No.2274 of 2021, decided alongwith connected matters on 28.05.2024 2 2025:HHC:3079 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 24.02.2025.” 3. Respondents in their instructions dated 22.02.2025 have not disputed that the case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid decision in Satya Devi’s2 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 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 writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua February 24, 2025 Judge Mukesh