2025:HHC:6578 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMP(M) No.115 of 2024 a/w LPA No.99 of 2025 Decided on:13.03.2025 __________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. ...Applicants- Appellants Versus Het Ram ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the applicants/: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, appellants. Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] CMP(M) No.115 of 2024 Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, we are of the opinion that sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. Therefore, the delay of 56 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. Appeal be registered. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:6578 - 2 - LPA No.99 of 2025 Challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed by Learned Single Judge on 15.07.2024, in CWP No.6680 of 2024, titled as Het Ram versus State of HP & Ors., whereby, placing reliance on the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench in CWP No.2274 of 2021, titled as Satya Devi versus State of H.P. & Ors. a/w connected matters, decided on 28.05.2024, the writ petition was allowed. The resultant effect of the judgment was that the writ petitioner-respondent herein has been ordered to be continued in service till the age of 60 years. 2. As per the Ground of Appeal, the employee was to superannuate on 29th February, 2024 at the age of 58 years and apparently filed the writ petition in July, 2024 after the decision in the case of Satya Devi [supra], on 28.05.2024. 3. In a similar circumstances, we have dismissed the appeal of State in CMP(M) No.2127 of 2024 in LPA No.63 of 2025. The order reads as under:- “2. Present appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge passed in CWP No.11200 of 2024 titled as Bindra Devi Versus State of HP & Ors., wherein the learned Single Judge quashed the order dated 31.12.2023 [Annexure P-2] and directed the State to continue the petitioner in service till she attains the age of 60 years. 2025:HHC:6578 - 3 - 3. Vide the said order, the employee who is a Class-IV working in the Civil Hospital Sundarnagar, District Mandi, had been retired on the said date. Learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition in view of the fact that the matter was covered by the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in CWP No.2274 of 2024 titled as Satya Devi vs. State of H.P. & Ors. along with connected matters, decided on 28.05.2024. 4. The said benefit was granted on account of quashing of Notification dated 21.02.2018 by the Division Bench earlier, which provided that those Class-IV employees engaged prior to 10.05.2001 were to be retired after attaining the age of 60 years and those Class-IV employees engaged after 10.05.2001 were to be retired after attaining the age of 58 years and thus on the ground of discrimination. 5. It is not disputed that SLP (Civil) No.20496 of 2024 is pending before the Apex Court. However, there is no interim order passed in the said SLP. Learned Counsel for the State has tried to place reliance upon another SLP filed before the Apex Court, bearing No.2668 of 2025, titled as H.P. Vidhan Sabha Versus Bhagwan Singh, whereby the operation of the impugned order dated 01.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge was stayed. The said interim order dated 07.02.2025 passed in the said SLP by the Apex Court as such would not give any help to the State, since in that case the interim order has been passed by learned Single Judge which had been taken by the State to the Apex Court as the learned Single Judge had directed to take back the employee, during pendency of the writ petition. 6. In the present case, as noticed above, the main writ petition has been decided on the strength of judgment which has been passed by the Coordinate Bench. We have gone through the said decision and in the absence of any interim order passed in SLP No.20496 of 2024, we do not find any reason to take a different view as such also in favour of an employer. It would only benefit the State on payment of wages if she performs the duty and in case the SLP is dismissed, the State would not have to give 2025:HHC:6578 - 4 - equivalent amount without taking work from the employee in question. 7. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that being bound by the judgment of the Coordinate Bench, there is no scope taking a different view on account of absence of any interim order being passed in the SLP. 8. Resultantly, we dismiss the present appeal alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.” 4. Accordingly, for the same reasons State can still be benefitted by taking service of said writ petitioner till February, 2026. However, we feel that no plausible reason as such has been shown to entertain the appeal, since we are bound by the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and there is no interim order in favour of the State, by the Supreme Court till date. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed along with pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge March 13, 2025 [Shivender/Himani]