2025:HHC:3677 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2693 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.02.2025 _______________________________________________________ Smt. Asha Kumari …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate ,for respondent No.4. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “That the respondents may kindly be ordered to pay family pension to the petitioner w.e.f.1.1.2018 in terms of the law laid down in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, Sunder Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others with all the benefits incidental thereof.” 2. Before the reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:3677 case her pending representation dated 23.11.2024 (Annexure P-2) is decided by the competent authority, in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 23.11.2024 (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, titled Sunder Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in 3 2025:HHC:3677 appropriate court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge February 27, 2025 (shankar)