1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8250 of 2025 1 - Lata Dewangan W/o Late Ramlakhan Dewangan, Aged About 44 Years R/o Kududand, Infront Of S.B.T. College, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Secretary, Board Of Revenue, Chhattisgarh Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Divisional Joint Director, Treasury Account And Pension Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Upadhyay, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy A.G. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 26/08/2025 1. The petitioner has claimed the family pension, including the arrears by calculating the length of service of the husband of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.2009 to 01.03.2022. VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.26 18:34:13 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the husband of the petitioner was an employee and posted as Assistant Grade-III with the respondent department, who died in harness on 01.03.2022. After death of her husband, she moved her representation to the respondent authorities for grant of family pension in accordance with the existing rules and circulars applicable to the department and she claimed the benefit of Old Pension Scheme by making her representations dated 15.02.2023, 21.11.2024 and 01.04.2025, but till date her representation has not been decided. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner restricted his submissions to the extent that since despite repeated representations, the authorities have not decided her representations, they may be directed to take a decision on her representations in accordance with law within the stipulated time frame. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, though objected on merits, however, he would submit that he has no objection, if such a direction is being given to the authorities to take a decision on the pending representations of the petitioner within the stipulated time frame. 5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent No.2 to take a decision on the pending representations of the petitioner dated 15.02.2023, 21.11.2024 and 01.04.2025 (Annexure P/1, P/2 and P/5 respectively) in accordance with law on its own merits keeping in view the existing circulars and notifications of the State 3 Government holding the field, and after verifying the service record of the husband of the petitioner, within 90 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 6. The petitioner is further directed to produce a copy of this order to the respondent No. 2 within two weeks from today. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved