IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.110 of 2025 Decided on: 5th March, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Suresh Chand ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Ms. Nandita, Advocate vice Mr. K.K Verma, 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 03.01.2025: - “Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 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 - 2 - Petitioner’s, contention is that he has wrongfully been retired on 30.09.2023 at the age of 58 years, whereas, he is entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years i.e. 30.09.2025 in light of judgment dated 28.05.2024 rendered in CWP No. 2274 of 2021 (Satya Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others) and connected matters. Let learned Additional Advocate General to have instruction in the matter. List on 05.03.2025.” 2. Respondents in their instructions dated 27.01.2025 have not disputed that the case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid decision in Satya Devi’s case, 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 he 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 present petition is disposed in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge March 5,2025 R.Atal