IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.2722 of 2025 Decided on: 19th March, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Kartar Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Ms. Deepa, Advocate vice Ms. Suchitra Sen, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria and Mr. Sikandar Bhushan, Deputy Advocates General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to allow him to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years in light of law laid down in Satya Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others2. 2. Noticing the contention of the petitioner, following order was passed in the matter on 28.02.2025: - “Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner’s contention is that his 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 CWP No. 2274 of 2021, decided alongwith connected matters on 28.05.2024 - 2 - case is covered under the decision rendered in CWP No.2274/2021 (Satya Devi Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.) decided on 28.05.2024 along with connected matters and in terms of this decision, the petitioner is entitled to the benefits flowing from the above decision and also liable to serve with the respondents till his attaining the age of 60 years, which he will attain on 31.03.2026. 3. Petitioner's grievance is that he had already been retired at the age of 58 years on 31.03.2024, whereas, the respondents are mandated by the decision rendered in Satya Devi’s case (supra) to allow him to continue to serve till his attaining the age of 60 years, i.e. 31.03.2026. In view of above, let learned Additional Advocate General have instructions from respondents, as to whether the case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid decision in Satya Devi (supra) or not. Instructions be obtained by the next date. List on 19.03.2025.” 2. Respondents in their instructions dated 15.03.2025 have not disputed that the case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid decision in Satya Devi’s case, therefore, there shall be a direction to the respondents to confer the benefit of the aforesaid decision to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be re-inducted in service forthwith and shall be allowed to continue to serve till he attains the age of 60 years. This, shall, however, be subject to outcome of the SLP filed by the respondents in the aforesaid decision. - 3 - The present petition is disposed in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge March 19,2025 R.Atal