Decided On: 24Th October vs State Of H.P. And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 15593 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Decided On: 24Th October vs State Of H.P. And Others on 24 October, 2024

Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

2024:HHC:10182

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11902 of 2024 Decided on: 24th October, 2024

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jhabbo Devi                                                       .....Petitioner

                                                      Versus

State of H.P. and others                                      .....Respondents

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Whether approved for reporting? 1

For the Petitioner: Mr. Mukul Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta and Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocates 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 the grant of

following substantive reliefs:-

"I. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing respondents to consider the petitioner to be in the employment up to the age of 60 years instead of 58 yrs.

II. Issue a writ of Certiorari for quashing the office order dated 15.10.2024 (Annexure P-2) whereby the petitioner was retired at the age of 58 years.

III. Issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents to release all the consequential service benefits w.e.f. 31-12-2022, strictly as per the directions issued in judgment dated

Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

2024:HHC:10182

28.05.2024 delivered in CWP No.2274 of 2021 titled as Satya Devi Vs. State of HP & Ors. in the interest of justice."

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
October 24, 2024                                    Judge
     Mukesh