_________________________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. & Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 17926 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

_________________________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 22 November, 2024

Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.13396 of 2024 Decided on: 22nd November, 2024 _________________________________________________________________ Meena Devi ....Petitioner

Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting?

_________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. B.R. Dhiman, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocates General with Ms Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Mr. Y. P. S. Dhaulta, learned Additional

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on

behalf of the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of

following substantive relief: -

"(a) To issue necessary directions, in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of HP in CWP No. 2274 of 2021 titled Satya Devi Vs. state of H.P. and others date of decision

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

28.05.2024 to the concerned authorities to consider and allow the compensation to the petitioner, as per her eligibility for the period of two years i.e. with effect from 01.06.2020 to 30.05.2022 wince the petitioner has already crossed the age of 60 years and is ineligible to be reinstated beyond 60 years. The petitioner could not serve the period above because the petitioner was wrongly retired by the respondents at the age of 58 years."

3. Admittedly, the petitioner has invoked extra

ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India without even preferring any

representation to the competent authority for the redressal of

her grievances raised in the writ petition.

4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring

representation within two weeks from today. In case such a

representation is so made, the same shall be decided by the

competent authority in accordance with law within a period of

six weeks thereafter. The order so passed shall also be

communicated to the petitioner.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above

terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if

any.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge November 22, 2024 R.Atal