IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1333/2025. Date of Decision: 21st January, 2025. Durga Devi .....Petitioner. Versus State HP & Ors. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Vacation Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Addl. Advocate General. Bipin Chander Negi, Vacation Judge (oral). Notice. Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, learned Addl. Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i). That Annexure P-1 may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith. (ii). That the respondent may kindly be directed to grant compensation equal to the total emoluments which petitioner would have received had she been in service after 30.09.2024 and till reinstatement in service in terms of judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No/2274/2021 titled as Satya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh as 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 mentioned in the para 119 of the judgment (reproduced above). (iii) That the petitioner be held entitled to all the benefits with effect from 01.10.2024 till the date of reinstatement in service and may be ordered to be released in her favour.” 3. The petitioner was engaged on part-time as Water Career on 07.09.2002. The services of the petitioner were converted into daily wage basis on 27.11.2012. Subsequent thereto, vide office order dated 24.08.2017, the services of the present petitioner were regularized. Admittedly, in the case at hand, petitioner is a Class-IV Employee. She stood retired on 30.09.2024 on attaining the age of 58 years. 4. The State vide Notification dated 21.02.2018 had made a distinction between Class-IV employees engaged prior to 10.05.2001 and those engaged after 10.05.2001 for the purpose of determining the age of their retirement. Those Class IV employees engaged prior to 10.05.2001 were retired after attaining the age of 60 years and those Class IV employees engaged after 10.05.2001 were retired after attaining the age of 58 years. The aforesaid notification come up for consideration before this Court in CWP No. 2274 of 2021 along with connected matters, titled Satya Devi vs. State of H.P. & others 3 along with connected matters, decided on 28.05.2024. Therein the Notification dated 21.02.2018 was quashed. It was further ordered that all Class-IV employees (government servants) irrespective of their dates of appointment would now retire after attaining the age of 60 years. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment is being reproduced here-in-below. “118 Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons we strike down the words "appointed on part time/daily wage basis prior to 10.5.2001 and regularized on or after 10.5.2001" in the notification dated 21.02.2018 and declare that all class-IV Government servants irrespective of their initial date of engagement or the date of their regularization would retire on the last day of the month in which they attain the age of their superannuation of 60 years. 119. All the Writ Petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. Such of the petitioners/ Class IV Government servants who had retired from service prior to attaining age of superannuation of 60 years, shall be reinstated by the respondents if they have not crossed the age of 60 years as on date. Others who will not be able to be reinstated now on ground that they have already attained the age of 60 years, shall be paid compensation equal to the total emoluments which they would have received had they been in service until they attained the age of 60 years, less any amount they might have received by way of pension., etc. They will also be entitled to consequential retiral benefits. These shall be paid within 3 months from today. Those who are continuing in service by virtue of interim orders passed by this Court shall continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years. No costs.” 5. It is stated by the learned counsel on both sides that the issue involved in this petition is covered by 4 the judgment delivered on 28.05.2024 in CWP No. 2274 of 2021 (Satya Devi vs. State of H.P and others) and batch of cases. 6. Accordingly, impugned order dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment and the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner in service till she attains the age of 60 years. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Vacation Judge 21st January, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)