IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No:2146 of 2025 Decided On : 19th February, 2025 __________________________________________________________ Mahinder Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Additional Advocates General, for respondent No.1. Ms. Himani Verma, Advocate vice Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Ranjan Sharma, Judge [Oral] Petitioner, Mahinder Kumar, has come up before this Court seeking the following reliefs: “ (i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kind be issued and an office order dated 31.01.2025 (Annexure P-1) quashing may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That writ of mandamus kindly be issued directing the respondents may kindly be directed to retire the petitioner at the age of 60 years as has been done in case of other incumbents/workers.” 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2. In the background of the prayers, referred to above, the matter came up before this Court on 10.02.2025, when this Court passed the following orders:- “CWP No. 2146 of 2025 Heard. 2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, Learned Additional Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondent-State. Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3. As prayed, let the replies be filed or Instructions be furnished on or before the next date. 3. Grievances of the petitioner is that the respondents No. 2 and 3 retired the petitioner from service on attaining the age of 58 years on 31.01.2025 whereas, the petitioner is entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years in terms of the mandate of this Court in CWP No.4793 of 2024 titled as Jagdish Ram versus State of H.P. & Ors decided on 24.09.2024 [Annexure P-6] in terms of the Jagdish Ram’s case (supra) and the petitioner claims to be similarly placed. 4. Faced with this situation, Learned Counsels for the respondents seek four days’ time to file reply or furnish Instructions in the matter. 5. Let reply be filed or Instructions be furnished in the matter on or before the next date of hearing. 7. List on 14.02.2025. 3 CMP No. 2049 of 2025 Heard. Notice in aforesaid terms.” 3. As a sequel to orders dated 10.02.2025, learned counsel for Respondents No.2 and 3-Corporation was directed to file the reply or to furnish instructions as to whether the case of petitioner was covered in terms of mandate of this Court in CWP No.4793 of 2024, titled as Jagdish Ram vs State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 24.09.2024 [Annexure P-6], as the petitioner claimed himself to be similarly placed. Neither reply has been filed nor instructions have been furnished to this Court. 4. Matter was then listed on 14.02.2025, but neither reply has been filed nor instructions have been furnished by Respondents No.2 and 3, even today. However, Learned Vice Counsel states that the judgment, in case of Jagdish Ram [supra] is under consideration of the authorities. 5. Faced with this situation, Learned Counsel for petitioner, on instructions, states that once the petitioner is similarly placed with the petitioners in Jagdish Ram’s case [supra] and the matter has not been assailed and 4 impugned judgment dated 24.09.2024 [Annexure P-6], still holds the field then, the petitioner shall be satisfied, by directing the Respondents No.2 and 3 to examine the case of petitioner for similar benefits. 6. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the prayer made by Learned Counsel for petitioner [as in Para 5 supra], this Court, disposes of the instant writ petition, in the following terms :- (i) Respondent No.2-Managing Director of Himachal Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. is directed to examine the claim of petitioner for benefits on the analogy of judgment in CWP No.4793 of 2024, titled as Jagdish Ram vs State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 24.09.2024 [Annexure P-6], without discriminating the petitioner, if found to be similarly placed, after affording a personal hearing to petitioner on or before 15.03.2025; (ii) Upon consideration, in case the claim is found to be similarly placed, then the Respondents shall extend benefit of reinstatement/continue in service upto the age of 60 years [31.01.2027] and admissible service benefits to the petitioner thereafter; (iii) Needless to say that this Court is not adverted to the merits of the case and the 5 question of similarity and other claims may be examined by Respondent No.2, independently in accordance with law. (iv) No order as to costs. 7. In view of the above, the instant petition is disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Ranjan Sharma) February 19, 2025 Vacation Judge (Chiranjeev)