2025:HHC:4214 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2889 of 2025 Date of Decision: 03.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Kamla Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Shivom Vashista, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief:- “(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued for directing the Respondents to allow the petitioner to perform his duties in respondent organization upto the age of 60 years i.e. up to 30.04.2026, in view of the judgment rendered by This Hon'ble Court in case of C.W.P. No.- 2274/2021 titled as Satya Devi Vs. State of H.P. alongwith connected matters decided on 28.05.2024, in the interest of justice..” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment dated 28.05.2024 passed by Principal Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2274 of 2021 titled as Satya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. alongwith connected matters, states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Principal Division Bench of this Court in Satya Devi’s case (supra) and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the competent authority within a period of three weeks for redressal of her grievance as has been raised in the instant petition, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously within a period of six weeks in light of aforesaid judgment. Ordered accordingly. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. March 03, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2