IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 808/2025 Decided on: 10.01.2025 Ravi Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Tarun K. Sharma & Mr. Ranbir Rathore, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Dalip Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Dalip Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioner is Class-IV employee and serving as such in the office of Deputy District Attorney, Sarkaghat, District Mandi. His case is that the respondents intend to retire him from service on his attaining the age of 58 years on 31.01.2025, whereas in view of the law laid down Satya Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others and connected matters2, the petitioner is entitled to continue till his attaining the age of 60 years. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2CWP No. 2274 of 2021 decided decided on 28.05.2024 2 3. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of the factual aspect of the case has drawn attention to Annexure P-6 dated 02.01.2025, which is a communication addressed by the Director of Prosecution Himachal Pradesh to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The said communication duly acknowledges the fact that the petitioner is a Class-IV employee in the respondent-department, who is due for retirement on 31.01.2025 on attaining the age of 58 years. 4. Keeping in view the averments made in the writ petition and the documents placed on record in particular Annexure P-6 dated 02.01.2025, whereby the respondents had not disputed the case of the petitioner being covered by the decision in Satya Devi’s2 case, learned Additional Advocate General was directed to have instructions in the matter. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record office instructions dated 10.01.2025 from the Director Prosecution, which inter-alia read as under:- “That the petitioner Ravi Kumar, presently posted as Peon in the office of Deputy District Attorney, Mandi was initially appointed on contract basis on 08.12.2004 and thereafter his services were regularized vide order dated 27.08.2012 and he is due to retire on 31.01.2025 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e 58 years. 3 That he has made a representation to the Directorate for extension of his retirement age as 60 years instead of 58 years which was received in the Directorate on 17.12.2024. The matter was examined at the Directorate level and submitted to the Government vide letter No. DPr-B(2)1/2024-16-18 dated 02.01.2025 to seek clarification as to whether orders/judgments passed in CWP's No. 2369/2021 and 2274/2021 (relied upon by the petitioner) have been challenged by the State of HP or not and seek further necessary directions so that further action can be taken in the matter. That presently the matter is pending for consideration with Finance Department.” 6. As per these instructions, the petitioner was initially appointed on contract basis on 08.12.2004; His services were regularized on 27.08.2012; The aforesaid instructions do not dispute that the case of the petitioner is covered by Satya Devi’s2 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. Accordingly, the petitioner, who is presently continuing in service shall be allowed to continue to serve till his attaining the age of 60 years. This, shall, however, be subject to outcome of the SLP being filed by the respondents in the aforesaid decision. 4 The present petition is disposed in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 10th January, 2025(rohit)