Jai Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Jai Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of without adjudicating the merits; respondents directed to consider and decide the pending representation dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure P-3) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, after affording the petitioner a hearing and passing a detailed speaking order in light of the Satya Devi Division Bench judgment (CWP No.2274 of 2021); liberty reserved to pursue further remedies if still aggrieved; pending applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner should be retired only after completing the age of 60 years, with all consequential benefits (arrears of pay, increments, seniority), as is done for other similarly situated Class-IV employees of the State. +2 more

Ratio / Principle

Without going into the merits, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure P-3) expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks.

Key takeaways

The authority deciding the representation must afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a detailed speaking order, taking note of the Division Bench judgment in Satya Devi (supra), wherein the issue sought to be decided here already stands adjudicated.ratio¶17
Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate Court of law if she still remains aggrieved after the representation is decided.ratio¶17
All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law / retirement age – writ petition by a Class-IV employee (CWP No.4897 of 2025) claiming retirement only at age 60 with consequential benefits and reinstatement till 31.07.2025. Before any reply was received, counsel confined the prayer to time-bound disposal of the petitioner's representation dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure P-3) in light of the Division Bench judgment in Satya Devi (CWP No.2274 of 2021 and connected matters). The Court (Sandeep Sharma, J., oral) disposed of the petition without entering the merits, directing the respondents to decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, after giving the petitioner a hearing and issuing a detailed speaking order that takes note of the Satya Devi judgment, wherein the underlying issue is stated to stand already adjudicated; liberty was reserved to the petitioner to approach an appropriate Court if still aggrieved, and pending applications stood disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.4897 of 2025

Date of Decision: 03.04.2025

_______________________________________________________ Jai Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. Chaman Negi, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for

following main reliefs:-

“(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to retire the petitioner only after having completed the age of 60 years with all consequential benefits,like arrear of pay, increments, seniority etc., as is being done in case of other Class-IV employees of the State, who are similarly situated to the petitioner.

(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service till attaining the age of 60 years i.e., 31.07.2025, with all consequential benefits.

(iii) That the respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to decide the representation dated 20.02.2025, Annexure P-3, within the time bound manner.”

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

2

Before reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case her pending representation dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure P-3) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2274 of 2021, titled as Satya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others , along with connected matters, in a time bound manner.

Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity

3

of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Satya Devi case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if she still remains aggrieved.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

April 03, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)