IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1621 of 2025 Decided on: 24.01.2025 ____________________________________________________ Sunita Devi ……….. petitioner Versus State of H.P. & another ……….respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Vacation Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. C.D. Negi, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Additional Advocate General. : ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Vacation Judge (oral) Notice. Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i. That an appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued thereby quashing and setting aside office order dated 31.08.2023 in the interest of justice. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to continue her services till the age of 60 years being Class-IV employee, as per the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No. 2274 of 2021, Satya Devi vs. State of H.P. and others and other connected matters. iii. That the petitioner rendered her services as whole time and as regular employees for more than 12 years therefore, an appropriate directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to grant her the benefits of leave encashment gratuity and pension also. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The petitioner was initially engaged as a part time water career in the month of July, 2022. Subsequent thereto, the services of the petitioner were converted into whole time in the year 2011. Thereafter the services of the petitioner were regularized on 10.04.2017. On attaining the age of 58 years, she was retired on 31.08.2023. 3. 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 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 dt. 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. 3 119. 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.” 4. It is stated by the learned counsel on both sides that the issue involved in this petition is covered by the judgment delivered on 28.05.2024 in CWP No. 2274 of 2021 titled Satya Devi vs. State of H.P and others and batch of cases. 5. Accordingly, the 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. The office order dated 31.08.2023 i.e. Annexure P-1 is quashed Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Vacation Judge January 24, 2025 tarun