Skip to content
Order
  • Library
  • Features
  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact
Get started
Book a Demo

Order

At Order.law, we’re building India’s leading AI-powered legal research platform.Designed for solo lawyers, law firms, and corporate legal teams, Order helps you find relevant case law, analyze judgments, and draft with confidence faster and smarter.

Product

  • Features
  • Blog

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms

Library

  • Acts
  • Judgments
© 2026 Order. All rights reserved.
  1. Home/
  2. Library/
  3. High Court Of Himachal Pradesh/
  4. 2024/
  5. November

Dhani Ram vs. State of Hp and Ors

Decided on 30 November 2024• Citation: CWP/6218/2023• High Court of Himachal Pradesh
Download PDF

Read Judgment


                                                                 2024:HHC:12795     
                       IN THE HIGH COURT  OF HIMACHAL  PRADESH  AT SHIMLA           
                                         CWP  No.6218 of 2023                       
                                         Decided on: 30th November, 2024            
                     _________________________________________________________________
                     Dhani Ram                                 ....Petitioner       
                                         Versus                                     
                     State of H.P. & Ors.                     …Respondents          
                     _________________________________________________________________
                     Coram                                                          
                      Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua,                                
                     1 Whether approved for reporting?                              
                     _________________________________________________________________
                     For the petitioner:    Ms. Mamta  Bhatwan, Advocate vice       
                                            Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate.            
                     For the respondents:   Mr.     L.N.Shamra,     Additional      
                                            Advocates  General,for respondent       
                                            No.1.                                   
                                            Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate,      
                                            for respondents No.2 and 3.             
                     Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge                                       
                               Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to   
                     allow him to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 
                     years in light of law laid down in judgment dated 28.05.2024,  
                     rendered in CWP No. 2274 of 2021 (Satya Devi Vs. State of      
                     H.P. and others) and connected matters.                        
                     1  Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

                                               - 2 -             2024:HHC:12795     
                     2.        Noticing the contention of the petitioner, following 
                     order was passed in the matter on 12.11.2024: -                
                                     Petitioner contends that in view of the law laid
                                    “                                               
                               down in Satya Devi Versus State of H.P. and others1, 
                               he is entitled to continue to serve with the respondents
                               till he attains the age of 60 years, i.e. 31.03.2025,
                               whereas, the respondents have retired him on         
                               31.03.2023 at the age of 58 years.                   
                                    Let the learned Additional Advocate General and 
                               learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 & 3 to
                               have instructions in the matter specifically as to   
                               whether the case of the petitioner is covered under the
                               aforesaid judgment.                                  
                                    List on 29.11.2024. ”                           
                     3.        Respondents  No.2 and  3 in  their instructions      
                     dated 29.11.2024 have  not disputed that the case of the       
                     petitioner is covered by the aforesaid decision in Satya Devi’s
                     case, therefore, 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 he    
                     attains the age of 60 years. This, shall, however, be subject to
                     outcome of the SLP filed by the respondents in the aforesaid   
                     decision.                                                      

                                               - 3 -             2024:HHC:12795     
                               The  present petition is disposed in the above       
                     terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if    
                     any.                                                           
                                                         Jyotsna Rewal Dua          
                                                                Judge               
                     November  30, 2024                                             
                        R.Atal