2025:HHC:5385 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3237 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Kesri 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. Mohit Dogra, Advocate. For the respondent: 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 the impugned action of respondent department to retired the petitioner on 30.06.2023 at the age of 58 years which is contrary to the law laid down by this Hon'ble High Court in Satya Devi vs. State of HP & ors. (CWP No. 2274 of 2021) may be held wrong, illegal and bad in law. (ii) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued directing the respondents to allow the petitione to continue in service till attainment the age of 60 yea i.e. till 30.06.2025.” 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) 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. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being 2 heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. March 10, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3