IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 4814 of 2025 Decided on: 3rd April, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Bhaga Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Bonit Prakash, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ________________________________________________________________ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.Dhaluta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioner seeks benefit of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.2 . 3. Petitioner’s case is that her husband late Sh. Dayal Singh was engaged as a Daily Waged Beldar in the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Civil appeal No. 6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 - 2 - respondent- Irrigation & Public Works Department w.e.f. 01.01.1985. His services were brought on regular/work charge establishment on completion of ten years of daily wage services on 19.02.1996. He superannuated from service on 31.10.2002 after rendering seven years’ of regular service. He, however, was denied pension and consequently petitioner has also been denied family pension, which is due to her. Claim for pension/family pension has been made on the strength of decision rendered in Sunder Singh’s2 case as clarified in Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others3 It is, however, seen from the record that petitioner has not even represented to the respondents for redressal of her grievances. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be content in case she is permitted to file representation to the respondent/Competent Authority for redressal of her grievances and the respondents/Competent Authority is directed to decide the same within a time bound schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to this prayer. 3 Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2022 - 3 - 5. Having regard to above submissions but without examining the merits of the matter, this petition is disposed by permitting the petitioner to file representation within two weeks, which shall be decided by the respondents /Competent Authority within six weeks from the date of receipt of the same, in accordance with law and also keeping in view the aforesaid judgment. The decision so arrived at, shall be communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge April 3, 2024 R.Atal