IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 234/2025 Decided on: 13.03.2025 Nirmla Devi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Ms. Ranjana Pathania, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J 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 judgment rendered in Satya Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others.2 2. Noticing the contention of the petitioner, following order was passed in the matter on 04.01.2025:- “Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, 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 and in terms 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2CWP No. 2274 of 2021 alongwith connected matters decided on 28.05.2024 2 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 30.04.2026. 3. Petitioner's grievance is that she had already been retired at the age of 58 years on 30.04.2024, whereas, the respondents are mandated by the decision rendered in Satya Devi’s case (supra) to allow her to continue to serve till her attaining the age of 60 years, i.e. 30.04.2026. 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 06.03.2025.” 3. Respondents in their instructions dated 13.03.2025 have not disputed that the case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid decision in Satya Devi’s case. In view of the instructions placed by the respondents, there is no necessity for calling of the reply. Taking note of the instructions, 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 her attaining 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 13th March, 2025(rohit)