IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9453 of 2025 Date of Decision: 06.06.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Meena …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief: “(i) That the respondents may be ordered to process the case of the petitioner for family pension in terms of the law laid down in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, Sunder Singh Vrs. State of H.P. and others in a time bound manner.” 2. Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case her case is considered and decided in light of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, titled as Sunder Singh Vs. State of H.P. and Others, decided on 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 08.03.2018, wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings, already stands adjudicated. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that he is not averse to afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and case of the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. 4. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by way of affidavit, this Court is persuaded to agree with Ms. Babita Chauhan, learned counsel representing the petitioner that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in Sunder Singh (supra) and as such, no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the parties in case directions are issued to respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with the direction to respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereupon taking note of judgment passed in Sunder Singh (supra) and in the event of petitioner being found similar situate, then she shall also be granted similar benefit, as has been granted in Sunder Singh (supra). 3 Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 06, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)