IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1913 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Smt. Ram Kali …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Pankaj Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Pankaj Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that though respondent-State has already forwarded the case of the petitioner for grant of family pension in the office of Accountant General, Himachal Pradesh, but till date no, final decision has been taken on the same. 2. Careful perusal of communication dated 20.06.2024 (Annexure P-7) placed on record, reveals that Executive Engineer, Jal Shakti Division, Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh has already 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 recommended the case of the petitioner for family pension, but yet no follow up action till date has been taken by the Office of Accountant General, Himachal Pradesh, as a result of which, petitioner, who has otherwise lost her husband, is suffering on account of delay in granting family pension. 3. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, learned counsel representing respondent No.3 fairly states that action, if not already taken on aforesaid communication (Annexure P-7), shall be taken expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by learned counsel representing respondent No.3, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present petition and accordingly same is disposed of, with a direction to respondent No.3 to take final decision upon the recommendation made by respondent No.2 expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 5. Respondent No.3 is directed to file compliance affidavit within a period of two weeks and thereafter, Registry may list this matter before this Court. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 22,2025 (shankar)