2025:HHC:3175 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1111 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.02.2025 _______________________________________________________ Pushpa Kumari …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “That the respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the services of the petitioner as she was retired on 31st March, 2025 and permit her in service till the age of 60 years alongwith all consequential benefits as admissible to her”. 2. Before the reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case she is permitted to file representation with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the same in light of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:3175 in CWP No.2274 of 2021, titled as Satya Devi versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters, in a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General states that representation, if any, shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, coupled with the fact that issue sought to be raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court in Satya Devi’s case(supra), there appears to be no impediment in accepting the afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and accordingly the present petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the competent authority for redressal of her grievance as have been raised in the instant petition, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of four weeks, in accordance with law. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereupon, taking note of the mandate contained in the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Satya Devi’s case (supra). Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge February 24, 2025 (shankar)