IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2337 of 2022 Date of Decision: 05.12.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Smt. Sarla Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Shikha Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. Ms. Suman Bala (Jr. Assistant), District Ayurvedic Office, Kangra at Dharamshala, present in person, along with record. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief: “i. That the respondents may kindly be directed to set aside and quash the impugned order Annexure P-1, qua the petitioner (at serial no.62), which has mentioned the date of retirement as 30/11/2022, which is pre-mature and would result in the retirement of the petitioner at the age of 57 years only.” 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as came to be highlighted in the petition, is that though date of birth of the petitioner is 25.03.1965, but she is being retired prematurely on 30.11.2022. Vide order dated 29.11.2022 passed by this Court in CMP No.2337 of 2022, this Court having perused the record made available by the petitioner, wherein her date of birth was shown to be 25.03.1965, ordered that petitioner will not be 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 superannuated in terms of Annexure P-1 i.e. impugned order, whereby retirement of the petitioner was shown to be 30.11.2022. 3. Pursuant to afore interim order passed by this Court, petitioner continued to serve till March, 2025. When this matter came up for hearing on 17.03.2025, this Court with a view to ascertain the correctness of claim put forth by the petitioner, summoned original service record to find out that what was the date of birth recorded in the service record at the time of induction of the petitioner in service. 4. Pursuant to the afore order passed by this Court, Ms. Suman Bala (Jr. Assistant), District Ayurvedic Office, Kangra at Dharamshala, has come present along with record, perusal whereof clearly reveals that at the time of induction of the petitioner in service, her date of birth was recorded as 26.11.1962, meaning thereby, petitioner was rightly informed that she will be retiring on 30.11.2022. 5. Having carefully perused service record, learned counsel representing the petitioner fairly admits that case put forth by the petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of law and as such, deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. 6. Now next question which arises for consideration is “whether salary received by the petitioner, for the period w.e.f. 01.12.2020 till 31.03.2022, can be recovered or adjusted in the pension, payable to the petitioner, on account of her having rendered more than 17 years of regular service”. Since this Court while passing order dated 29.11.2022 had specifically observed that continuation of the petitioner in service shall be 3 subject to the final outcome of the present petition and in case, the petition is decided against her, then no equity shall be claimed by her and she will not be paid any salary for working beyond the period, as prescribed in Annexure P-1, it is ordered that excess amount of salary received by the petitioner for the aforesaid two years shall be recovered from the pension in equal monthly installments, by firstly adjusting same against pension, payable to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.2023. Needless to say, pension of the petitioner shall be fixed on the basis of her actual date of retirement i.e. 30.11.2022. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 05, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)