2025:HHC:3053 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No: 2448 of 2025 Decided on: 18.02.2025 Seema ...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. Vivek Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Navlesh Verma, Additional Advocate General. Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Ranjan Sharma, Judge The petitioner has filed the writ petition with the following prayer:- (i) That the impugned office order dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure )-1) , may kindly be quashed and set aside and petitioner may kindly be considered in services from the date of reliving i.e. 30.09.2024 in view of the law laid down by this Hon’ble High Court vide judgment dated 28.05.2024 passed in CWP No.2274 of 2021 alongwith connected matter in the interest of justice and fair play. (ii) That a writ, order or direction to the respondents to pay the petitioner the full amount of arrears of salary and allowances due from the date of premature 2 2025:HHC:3053 retirement i.e. 30.09.2024 to the date of actual reinstatement.” 2. Grievance is that on 04.03.2009, petitioner was initially engaged as Sweeper on daily wage services and his services were regularized on 13.09.2017 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. [30.09.2026] for which petitioner has made a representation dated 04.11.2024 [Annexure P-3] to Director, Department of Urban Development, Government of H.P. Shimla and Municipal Council, Theog, District Shimla through its Executive Director but despite this, the respondents relieved the petitioner from service at the age of 58 years on 30.09.2024, in violation of mandate in Satya Devi’s case (supra). 3. Upon listing of this case Mr. Navlesh Verma, learned 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 3 2025:HHC:3053 representation dated 04.11.2024 [Annexure P-3], in terms of the judgment in Satya Devi’s case (supra), shall be examined 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, Department of Urban Development, Government of Himachal Pradesh shall examine the claim of the petitioner as in representation dated 04.11.2024 [Annexure P-3], for continuity in service upto the age of 60 years [upto 30.9.2026] 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; 4 2025:HHC:3053 (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 release of admissible service benefits be taken by Respondents within 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 18, 2025 (mamta)