( 2025:HHC:3036 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No: 2287 of 2025 Decided on: 11.02.2025 Lajwanti ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ...Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN SHARMA, VACATION JUDGE WHETHER APPROVED FOR REPORTING? For the petitioner : Mr. Ketan Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate General. Ranjan Sharma, Judge The petitioner has filed the writ petition with the following prayers:- (i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the benefit of two years by considering the petitioner to be superannuated at the age of 60 years in terms of the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in Satya Devi Versus State of H.P. & Ors. (ii) That the representation dated 07.02.2025 filed by the petitioner may be decided within stipulated period.” 2 ( 2025:HHC:3036 ) 2. Grievance is that the petitioner was initially engaged as Daily Wager on 16.11.2015 as Peon and her services were regularized on 23.06.2021 and in terms of mandate of this Court, in CWP No. 2274 of 2021, titled as Satya Devi versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others decided on 28.05.2024, the petitioner has a right to continue in service up to the age of 60 years i.e. [28.02.2027] for which the petitioner has made a representation dated 07.02.2025 [Annexure P-4] to Director of Higher Education, Shimla but despite this, the respondents are taking steps to relieve the petitioner from service at the age of 58 years on 28.02.2025, in violation of mandate in Satya Devi’s case (supra). 3. Upon listing of this case Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate General, waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 4. Learned State Counsel submits that the claim of the petitioner for continuity-reinstatement as in representation dated 07.02.2025 [Annexure P-4] in terms of the judgment in Satya Devi’s case (supra) shall be examined 3 ( 2025:HHC:3036 ) by the competent authority in accordance with law and if the case of the petitioner is found to be similarly placed, then appropriate orders in accordance with law shall be passed. 5. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances and with the consent of Learned Counsels for the parties herein, this Court disposes of the instant writ petition, at this stage, leaving all questions open, with the following directions:- (i). Respondent No.2- Director of Higher Education Shimla shall examine the claim of the petitioner as in representation dated 07.02.2025 [Annexure P-4], for continuity in service upto the age of 60 years in terms of the judgment passed by the Principal Division Bench of this Court, in CWP No. 2274 of 2021 Satya Devi versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others decided on 28.05.2024, in accordance with law, after affording personal hearing to petitioner within three weeks from today; (ii). Upon consideration, if the claim of petitioner is found to be similarly placed and covered in terms of the judgment in Satya Devi’s case (supra), then, further consequential action of continuity/reinstatement and admissible service 4 ( 2025:HHC:3036 ) benefits to petitioner be taken by Respondents within the aforesaid period; (iii) Parties to bear respective costs. In aforesaid terms, the instant writ petition as well as the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Ranjan Sharma) Vacation Judge February 11, 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez)