1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6078 of 2024 Date of decision: 01.08.2025 Suneharu Devi. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4-State. : Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner’s case is that her late husband, Sh. Tehalu Ram, was engaged as a daily-wage Fitter in the respondent–Irrigation & Public Health Department on 01.01.1981. His services were regularized/granted work- charge status w.e.f. 11.03.1991 as a Class-III employee. He retired on attaining the age of 58 years on 31.10.2000. The petitioner’s late husband was not paid pension on the ground that his regular service was 9 years and 7 months, -2- i.e. less than the qualifying service of 10 years required under Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. 2. The respondents have not disputed the above facts. According to them, the late husband of the petitioner had filed CWP No.2309 of 2020 seeking pension. The said petition was stated to be pending adjudication. On that ground, learned counsel for the respondents had opposed the maintainability of the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a copy of the order dated 21.07.2025 passed in CWP No.2309 of 2020 (Tehlu Ram vs. State of H.P. & Ors.), permitting withdrawal of the said petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of decision rendered in Roop Lal Versus State of H.P. & Others1. In the aforesaid decision, Hon’ble Division Bench had directed the respondents to extend the benefit of law laid down in Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.2 and Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others3. SLP(C) No.1007/2024 instituted by 1 LPA No.196 of 2022, decided on 11.10.2023 2 Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 3 Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2022 -3- the State against the aforesaid decision has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 18.03.2025. 4. The above position is not in dispute. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.2/Competent Authority to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of family pension to her in light of the aforesaid decisions in Roop Lal2, Sunder Singh3 and Balo Devi4 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at, shall 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 1st August, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)