IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 19144 of 2025 Decided on: 18.12.2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bimla Devi …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L.Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, for respondents No. 4 & 5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, learned Senior Panel Counsel and Mr. Rangil Singh, learned counsel, appear and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and respondents No. 4 and 5, respectively. 2. The case set up by the petitioner is that her husband late Shri Dharam Singh was firstly married to Smt. Kaushalya Devi. Sh. Dharam Singh did not have any issue from his first marriage. He solemnized second 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 marriage with Smt. Kaushalya Devi’s sister i.e. present petitioner. From this marriage, Sh. Dharam Singh and the petitioner were blessed with two sons and a daughter who are presently 49 years, 42 years and 50 years of age. Shri Dharam Singh retired from Central Reserve Police Force and was in receipt of regular pension thereafter. He passed away on 04.08.2012. Pension thereafter was paid to Smt. Kaushalya Devi. She also died on 16.08.2023. Petitioner now claims pension. Reliance in support of relief has been placed upon Mahesh Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner would be satisfied in case respondent No.2/Competent Authority is directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for grant of family pension keeping in view the facts of the case of Mahesh Ram2 within time bound schedule. Learned Counsels for the respondents are not averse to this prayer. 3. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondentNo.2/ competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in accordance with law 2CWP No.2269/2024, decided on 17.09.2025. 3 as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Mahesh Ram2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 18, 2025 Judge yogesh