IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.826 of 2025 Decided on: 11th March, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tashi Wangmo …..Petitioner Versus Director of Horticulture and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Bhawna Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge 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 Satya Devi Versus State of H.P. and others2. 2. Noticing the contention of the petitioner, following order was passed in the matter on 10.01.2025:- “Notice. Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondents. Petitioner’s contention is that she has wrongfully been retired on 31.05.2024 at the age of 58 years, whereas, she is entitled to continue in service till she attains the age of 60 years i.e. 31.05.2026 in light of judgment dated 28.05.2024 rendered in CWP No. 2274 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 CWP No.2274 of 2021, decided alongwith connected matters on 28.05.2024 2 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 11.03.2025.” 3. Learned Assistant Advocate General has placed on record office instructions dated 28.02.2025 from the Director of Horticulture, Himachal Pradesh, to the effect that the case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid decision in Satya Devi2. The instructions are also to the effect that the respondent-Department has re-engaged the petitioner against the post of Beldar at the same station, where she was working prior to her retirement at the age of 58 years. 4. Taking note of the above instructions, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service 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 writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua March 11, 2025 Judge Mukesh