IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2390 of 2025 Date of decision: 27.02.2025 Champa Devi. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2-State. : Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 and respondent No.3, respectively. In view of the case pleaded by the petitioner and the documents on record, it is not necessary to call for the reply from the respondents. 2. The facts pleaded by the petitioner are that the petitioner, aged 72 years, is wife of late Sh. Madan Singh. Petitioner’s husband was re-employed in Civil employment 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- with the respondent-Department on 02.02.1999 as Driver under Ex-serviceman quota. After joining the post, he died on 18.05.1999. Petitioner’s case is that she is entitled to draw dual pension, i.e. pension from Military side on account of Military service of her husband and also from the Civil side that is from the respondent-Department on account of Civil employment of her husband. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is to the decision of the respondent-Health & Family Welfare Department as communicated to her on 10.01.2023 (Annexure P-5), declining to grant her family pension. The reason given by the respondents in the aforesaid communication is as under:- “With the reference of your application dated 5.7.2022, on the subject cited above and to state that as per Notification issued by the Finance Department vide notification No.Fin(Pen)A(3)-1/09-Part-III dated 19.02.2014 (Copy enclosed), it is to inform you that as per notification that Family pension admissible under the rule shall not be granted to a person who is already in receipt of Family pension or is eligible therefore under any other rules of the Central Government or a State/Government and/or Public Sector Undertaking/Autonomous Body/Local Fund under the Central or a State Govt.” 4. The respondents have declined to grant family pension to the petitioner on the ground that the notification issued by the Finance Department on 19.02.2014 does not -3- permit grant of Family pension to a person, who is already in receipt of Family pension or is eligible under any other rules of the Central Government/State Government and/or Public Sector Undertaking etc. The petitioner has placed on record the aforesaid office memorandum of the Finance Department dated 19.02.2014 (Annexure P-8). Relevant portion of the same reads as under:- “Subject:- Grant of family pensions to the families of the military pensioners and continuance of family pension to mentally/physically retarded children even after their marriage. The undersigned is directed to say that the Government has decided to allow family pension to the families of Armed Forces pensioners, who were re-employed in State Government, and are in receipt of family pension from military side. This family pension shall be subject to admissibility in accordance with clause (b) of sub rule (2) of Rule 54 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Further, the Government has also decided to allow continuance of family pension to mentally/physically disabled children even after their marriage subject to fulfillment of other conditions. The financial benefits in past cases will accrue from the date of issue of this office memorandum.” 5. The office memorandum dated 19.02.2014 clearly states that the Government has decided to allow Family pension to the families of Armed Forces pensioners, who were re-employed in the State Government and are in receipt of Family pension from Military side. Thus, dual pension has not been refused under notification dated 19.02.2014, -4- therefore, the sole ground given by the respondents in rejecting petitioner’s claim of dual family pension in the communication dated 10.01.2023 cannot be sustained. For this reason alone, this writ petition is allowed. Decision as conveyed by the respondents in the impugned office communication dated 10.01.2023 (Annexure P-5), is set aside. Respondents are directed to examine the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with applicable office memorandum and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. It is made clear that this order has been passed on the reason for rejection of petitioner’s case mentioned in the impugned communication. All other rights & contentions of the parties are left open. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 27th February, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)