2025:HHC:4095 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.2881 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sarswati Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L. Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “(a) to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof to the respondent State to quash the impugned Annexure P-2, whereby the petitioner be retired on attaining the age of 58 years instead of permitting her to discharge her duties till the age of 60 years. (b) to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof to the respondent State to reinstate the petitioner as Peon-cum- Chowkidar and pay emoluments and other financial benefits due to the petitioner with all consequential be3nefits for not allowing her to serve till the age of 60 years.” 2. Before reply, if any, could be called for on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case he is permitted to make a representation to the respondent-department for redressal of 2025:HHC:4095 2 his grievance in light of judgment dated 28.05.2024 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2274 of 2021, titled Satya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, along with connected matters. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents/State, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if any filed, shall be decided in accordance with law. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, 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 within a period of one week for redressal of her grievance in light of judgment passed in Satya Devi (supra), which in-turn shall be decided by the respondents, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. March 01, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge