IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8984 of 2025 Decided on: 30th May, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shyam Dei …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rangil Singh, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 and respondent No.5, respectively. 2. Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay her revised family pension alongwith arrears as per office communication dated 03.01.2025 (Annexure P-3). 3. When the matter was taken up in the morning session, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 respondent No.5 had initially sanctioned a Pension Payment Order (PPO) in favour of petitioner’s husband, wherein name of the petitioner had been wrongly mentioned as ‘Smt. Sawan Devi’. This was later on corrected under corrigendum dated 11.05.2018 (Annexure P-2) by depicting the correct name of the petitioner as ‘Smt. Shyam Dei’. Consequent upon death of petitioner’s husband, family pension was though sanctioned in favour of the petitioner and accordingly, a communication was issued by respondent No.5 to respondent No.4-the District Treasury Officer, Solan on 03.01.2025, but the name of the petitioner was again incorrectly mentioned therein as ‘Smt. Sawan Devi’. Respondent No.4 on 18.01.2025, requested respondent No.5 to correct the name of the petitioner as ‘Smt. Shyam Dei’, however, no cognizance was taken upon the aforesaid office communication. 4. In view of above facts, learned counsel for respondent No.5 was requested to look into the matter and to get the error, if any, rectified in the record. Pursuant thereto, learned counsel for respondent No.5 has now placed on record an office letter dated 30.05.2025, addressed by respondent No.5 to the District Treasury Officer, Solan alongwith corrected copy of communication 3 dated 03.01.2025, sanctioning revised family pension and arrears to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of needful having been now done by respondent No.5, respondent No.4 be directed to discharge its obligations. 5. Taking note of office letter dated 30.05.2025 alongwith communication dated 03.01.2025, this writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.4 to do the needful by paying due and admissible family pension alongwith arrears to the petitioner within three weeks from today. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 30, 2025 Judge Mukesh