IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13938 of 2025 Decided on: 7th October, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Surekha Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sandeep Pandey, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Even though the respondents have not filed reply pursuant to the notice issued to them on 29.08.2025, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, keeping in view the grievance of the petitioner and the relief claimed for by her, the matter has been heard at this stage. 2. Petitioner aged 62 years, is wife of late Sh. Suresh Chand. In this writ petition filed on 26.08.2025, she seeks a direction to the respondents to count the entire ad hoc service rendered by her husband-late Sh. Suresh 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Chand w.e.f. 30.08.1985 till the date of his regularization, i.e. 18.06.1999, for the purpose of increments and consequential retiral benefits including family pension. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in receipt of family pension on account of service rendered by her husband, who had superannuated as Junior Basic Trained Teacher on 30.06.2017. Sh. Suresh Chand passed away on 25.03.2025. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in case the relief prayed for by the petitioner is allowed to her, that would result in enhancement in the family pension being paid to her and the consequent retiral benefits received by her late husband. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has candidly admitted that petitioner’s late husband-Sh. Suresh Chand had not filed any writ petition during his lifetime, seeking to count the ad hoc service rendered by him w.e.f. 30.08.1985 till the date of his regularization, i.e. 18.06.1999, for the purpose of increments and other retiral benefits. He had accepted this regularization order dated 18.06.1999. He had also accepted the consequential retiral benefits paid to him on his superannuation on 30.06.2017 as also the pension. 3 Given this position, it defies logic as to how the petitioner can institute this writ petition seeking a relief in favour of her husband in order to get more family pension. The claim is hopelessly barred by delay, laches and acquiescence. No explanation for condoning such lapse is even accorded in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua October 07, 2025 Judge Mukesh