IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13365 of 2026 Decided on: 10th September, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kamlesh Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Aman Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Even though the respondents have not filed reply, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(a) To issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to work till 60 years of age on account of the fact that the petitioner was appointed as Part timer on 09.06.1998 prior to 10.05.2001. (b) That the Petitioner may be allowed full consequential benefits including arrears of salary and continuity from the illegal date of retirement i.e. 30.04.26. 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 (c) That the impugned Orders Annexure P-3 Letter dated 17.09.2025 and Annexure P-4 dated 30.04.26 retiring the Petitioner at 58 years may be quashed and set aside.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner and the reliefs claimed by him have already been considered and decided in Baldev Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case the respondents are directed to consider his case and redress his grievances in light of above decisions within a fixed time-schedule. Learned Assistant Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. In view of above, notwithstanding orders/office orders dated 17.09.2025 (Annexure P-3) and 30.04.2026 (Annexure P-4), this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment by passing appropriate order, within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. 2 CWP No.2711 of 2017, decided alongwith connected matter on 22.02.2022 3 The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 10, 2026 Judge Mukesh