Kamla Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Kamla Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents to confer the benefit of the Satya Devi decision (CWP No. 2274 of 2021, decided 28.05.2024) on the petitioner; petitioner to be re-inducted in service forthwith and allowed to continue until attaining 60 years (i.e. 31.05.2025), subject to the outcome of the respondents' SLP against that decision; petition and pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, disposed accordingly.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who was retired by the respondents on 31.05.2023 at the age of 58 years, is entitled to a direction allowing her to continue in service till attaining the age of 60 years in light of the law laid down in the Satya Devi judgment.

Court's answer

Since the respondents' instructions dated 09.12.2024 did not dispute that the petitioner's case is covered by the Satya Devi decision, there was no necessity to call for a reply, and the respondents were directed to confer the benefit of that decision to the petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is to be re-inducted in service forthwith and allowed to continue to serve till attaining the age of 60 years.

Key takeaways

The direction/conferral of benefit is made subject to the outcome of the SLP filed by the respondents against the aforesaid (Satya Devi) decision.ratio¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service Law – Retirement age – Petitioner retired by respondents on 31.05.2023 at 58 years; she sought continuance till 60 years (31.05.2025) relying on Satya Devi v. State of H.P. (CWP No. 2274 of 2021, alongwith connected matters, decided 28.05.2024). On respondents' instructions dated 09.12.2024 not disputing coverage of the petitioner's case by that decision, the High Court (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.) dispensed with a reply and directed the respondents to confer the benefit of the Satya Devi decision: petitioner to be re-inducted forthwith and to continue in service till attaining 60 years, subject to the outcome of the SLP filed by the respondents against that decision. Petition disposed in these terms alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 13524/2024 Decided on:09.12.2024

Kamla Devi …Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. & Ors.

.…Respondents.

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the petitioner: Mr. Suresh Saini, Advocate vive Mr. Rajendra Gulati, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J

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 judgment rendered in Satya Devi Vs. State of

H.P. and others.²

Noticing the contention of the petitioner, following order was passed in the matter on 12.11.2024:-

“Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, 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

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

2 CWP No. 2274 of 2021 alongwith connected matters decided on 28.05.2024

2

alongwith connected 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. 31.05.2025, whereas, the respondents have retired her on 31.05.2023 at 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 09.12.2024”

Respondents in their instructions dated 09.12.2024

have not disputed that the case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid decision in Satya Devi’s case. In view of the instructions placed by the respondents, there is no necessity for calling of the reply. Taking note of the instructions, there shall be a direction to the respondents to confer the benefit of the aforesaid decision to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be re-inducted in service forthwith and shall be allowed to continue to serve till her attaining 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.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

09^th December, 2024(rohit)