IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8787 of 2025 Date of Decision: 29.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Nirmla Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K.Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, who is the wife of a retired Government Employee, is that despite repeated requests, family pension is not being paid. Though late husband of the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis in HPPWD Division Kotkhai, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, but subsequently his services were brought on regular/work charge establishment w.e.f 01.01.2006 (Annexure P-1). Unfortunately, late husband of the petitioner died in harness on 03.01.2021, after rendering more than 15 years service. As per Family Pension Rules, if one renders one year service on temporary or regular basis, then family pension is admissible to the nominee/legal heir after the death of concerned employee and as such, petitioner cannot be denied family pension on completion of one year service. However, in the instant case, husband of the petitioner has rendered more than 15 years of regular service, but yet she is being not given family pension. 2. It also emerges from the averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit as well as documents annexed therewith that though vide order dated 20.12.2021, gratuity amounting to Rs. 3,54,300/- stands released in favour of the petitioner, but yet her case for family pension has not been processed. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though he has every reason to presume and believe that case of the petitioner for family pension must have been processed, but if the same has not been done yet, same shall be processed and finalized expeditiously. 4. Having taken note of the fact that petitioner, being widow of a Government employee is entitled to family pension on account of 2 15 years service rendered by her late husband, 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 ensure that case of the petitioner for family pension, if not only processed, is processed expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks and thereafter family pension is disbursed to her along with consequential benefits within four months. Ordered accordingly. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. May 29, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3