IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.866 of 2025 Decided on: 25th February, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Saroj Kumari ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. R.L.Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to allow her to continue in service till she 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 10.01.2025: - “Notice. Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts service of 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 - notice on behalf of the respondents. Petitioner contends that in view of law laid down in CWP No. 2274 of 2021 (Satya Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others) and connected matters, she is entitled to serve with the respondents till she attains the age of 60 years i.e. 28.02.2027, whereas, the respondents are going to retire her on 28.02.2025, on her attaining the age of 58 years Let learned Additional Advocate General to have instruction in the matter, specifically as to whether the case of the petitioner is covered under the aforesaid judgment. List on 25.02.2025.” 3. Respondents in their instructions dated 22.02.2025 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 and allow her to continue in service till she 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 February 25,2025 R.Atal