IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15347 of 2024 Date of Decision: 17.10.2025 _______________________________________________________ Urmila Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “a. That petitioner be deemed in service till 60 years of age and respondents may kindly be directed to release all consequential service benefits specifically pay fixation and pension, thereafter arrears of pension may also be released in favour of the petitioner alongwith 9% interest; b. That petitioner may be deemed to be in service till 31.05.2015, after adding two years service in his service carrier, strictly in view of law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No. 2711 of 2017 alongwith connected matters alongwith consequential benefits or in alternate case of petitioner may kindly be considered strictly in terms of law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No. 2711 of 2017 thereafter all consequential benefits including pension from due date may also be released in favour of the petitioner.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Pursuant to the notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed reply, perusal whereof reveals that relief prayed for in the instant petition stands granted in favour of the petitioner. 3. Careful perusal of order dated 11.12.2024 (Annexure R-1) annexed with the reply, reveals that respondents after having considered the case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 22.02.2022 passed by Full Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2711 of 2017, titled Baldev versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters, have deemed her to be retried on the date when she otherwise attained the age of 60 years. In afore order, it has been stated that since petitioner has not actually worked up to the age of 60 years, she is not entitled to the actual monetary benefits of wages/salary etc. for the period of service from the date of her actual retirement till deemed date of her retirement. However, she is entitled to notional fixation of her pay for the period in question for working out his payable pension and payment of consequential arrears of pension. 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner fairly admits that relief as prayed for in the instant petition stands 3 granted to the petitioner, but prays that necessary direction may be issued to the respondents to release the consequential benefits, in a time bound manner. 5. Having taken note of the reply filed by the respondents as well as fair statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant petition and accordingly same is disposed of as having rendered infructuous, but with a direction to the respondents to release the consequential benefits, if any, flowing from the order dated 11.12.2024 (Annexure R-1) expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 17, 2025 (shankar)