IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19710 of 2025 Decided on: 16th December, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anita 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. Bonit Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. It appears that the petitioner continued in service beyond the superannuation age of 58 years on the strength of Anita Devi Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.2. The said writ petition was allowed as under:- “Heard both sides. 2. The issue raised in this Writ petition is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court on 28.05.2024 in CWP No.2274 of 2021 alongwith connected matters. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 CWP No.1776 of 2024, decided on 27.06.2024 2 3. Therefore for reasons alike, this Writ petition is also allowed and the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner in service till she attains the age of 60 years. 4. The Writ petition, is accordingly, disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.” 3. Anita Devi2 was allowed on the strength of the decision rendered in Satya Devi Versus State of H.P. and others3. The decision rendered in Satya Devi3 has admittedly been stayed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 24.03.2025 passed in State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Inder Pal4. Based upon the interim order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the respondents have now relieved the petitioner from service on 18.11.2025 (Annexure P-2). Petitioner feels aggrieved against the aforesaid relieving. 4. In view of Satya Devi3 having been stayed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, petitioner’s relieving from service under impugned order dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure P-2) cannot be faulted at this stage. However, petitioner’s relieving shall abide by the outcome of Inder Pal’s4 case instituted by the respondents against the common judgment rendered in Satya Devi’s3 case. 3 CWP No.2274 of 2021, decided alongwith connected matters on 28.05.2024 4 Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.11306/2025 3 With these observations, the present writ petition to stand disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 16, 2025 Judge Mukesh