IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3010 of 2025 Decided on: 24th March, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anita Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L. Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to allow her to continue in service till her attaining the age of 60 years in light of law laid down in Satya Devi Versus State of H.P. and others2. 2. Noticing the contention of the petitioner, following order was passed in the matter on 04.03.2025:- “CWP No.3010 of 2025 & CMP No.3149 of 2025 Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. Petitioner contends that in view of the law laid down in CWP No.2274 of 2021 (Satya Devi Versus State of H.P. and others), decided alongwith connected 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 CWP No.2274 of 2021, decided alongwith connected matters on 28.05.2024 2 matters on 28.05.2024, she is entitled to continue to serve with the respondents till she attains the age of 60 years, i.e. 31.03.2027, whereas, the respondents are going to retire her on 31.03.2025 on her attaining the age of 58 years. Let the learned Additional Advocate General to have instructions in the matter specifically as to whether the case of the petitioner is covered under the aforesaid judgment. List on 24.03.2025.” 3. Respondents in their instructions dated 19.03.2025 have not disputed that the case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid decision in Satya Devi’s2 case. Admittedly, operation of the judgment in Satya Devi’s2 case has not been stayed till date, therefore, there shall be a direction to the respondents to confer the benefit of the aforesaid decision to the petitioner and allow her to continue in service till she attains the age of 60 years. This, shall, however, be subject to outcome of the SLP filed by the respondents in the aforesaid decision. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua March 24, 2025 Judge Mukesh