IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.915 of 2026 Date of Decision: 09.01.2026 _______________________________________________________ Rajendra Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sative Chauhan & Mr. Ashir Kaith, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Through instant petition, petitioner seeks benefit of the decision rendered in judgment passed in CWP No.2274 of 2024 titled as Satya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., decided on 28.05.2024. 2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General states that since judgment passed in Satya Devi’s case has been stayed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.20496 of 2024, relief, as prayed for, in the instant petition cannot be allowed. Copy of an order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 24.03.2025 in several connected Special Leave Petitions, with lead case being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.11306 of 2025 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Inder Pal, has been made available to this Court during proceedings of the case and same reads as under:- “(1) Delay condoned. (2) Let the notice be issued to the respondents(s) in all the matters. (3) Tag alongwith SPL(C) No. 20496 of 2024 (4) In the meantime the operation of the impugned order(s), is/are stayed.” 3. Since it is quite apparent from the aforesaid order that mandate contained in the judgment passed in Satya Devi’s case along with connected matters has been stayed, prayer made in the instant petition cannot be allowed, but with the consent of parties, petition at hand is disposed of with a direction that benefits, if any, flowing to the petitioner under Satya Devi’s case, shall abide by the outcome of the Inder Pal’s case instituted by the respondents against the common judgment rendered in Satya Devi’s case. Ordered accordingly. It is clarified that retiral benefits including gratuity, if not already released to the petitioner qua services rendered by her prior to her having attained the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years, shall be released expeditiously. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of (Sandeep Sharma), Judge January 09,2026 (shankar)