IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No.233/2026 & Review Petiton 27/2026 Decided on: 07.04.2026 State of H.P. & Ors. …Petitioners Versus Kashmiri Devi .…Respondent ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional, Advocate General. For the respondent: Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. In view of the nature of the prayer made for seeking review of the judgment in question, the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of H.P. & Ors. Vs. Satya Devi2, and the order being passed hereinafter, there is no necessity to issue notice to the respondents. 2. The writ respondents-State seek review of Kashmiri Devi Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.3 There is delay of 279 days in filing the review petition. Accordingly, the writ respondents/applicants have sought condonation of delay in filing the review petition. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).20496/2024 alongwith connected matters 3 CWP No. 16740/2024 decided on 10.01.2025 2 3. In the interest of justice, I have heard learned Additional Advocate General on the application seeking condonation of delay, as well as on the merits of the review petition. Kashmiri Devi2 was moved by the original writ petitioner seeking applicability of Satya Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others.4 Kashmiri Devi2 was decided on 10.01.2025 as under: - “3. Respondents in their instructions dated 09.01.2025 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 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 present petition is disposed in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in Satya Devi2 preferred by the writ respondents against the decision rendered in Satya Devi4, the Hon’ble Apex Court has granted interim relief by staying the operation of the judgment rendered in Satya Devi4, therefore, on this ground, Kashmiri Devi3 is required to be reviewed. 4. Directions issued in Kashmiri Devi3 were subject to the outcome of Satya Devi2 filed by the writ respondents against 4 CWP No. 2274 of 2021 and connected matters. decided on 28.05.2024 3 the Satya Devi4. It is a matter of record that Satya Devi4 has been stayed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).20496/2024. The order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court certainly takes precedence in this matter. In any case, the directions issued in Kashmiri Devi3 were otherwise subject to the order/decision in the Satya Devi2 filed by the writ respondents against Satya Devi4. In view of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Satya Devi2 along with other several connected matters, the writ petitioner cannot claim the right to serve until the age of 60 years. This direction was otherwise inclusive & within the intent and purport of the decision rendered in Kashmiri Devi3 . With above clarification, the application as also the review petition to stand disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 7th April, 2026(rohit)