( 2026:HHC:22132 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3071 of 2025 Decided on: 15.06.2026 Ajay Kumar ……Petitioner. -Versus- Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another …….Respondents. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. ______________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: M/s Parav Sharma, Avnish Mandhotra and Srishti Ramesh, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) That the petitioner may kindly be held entitled for grant of family pension on account of his being 55% moderate mental retardation w.e.f. the date of death of his father on 21.07.2014, with all consequential benefits and the arrears may kindly be paid alongwith interest. 1 Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. ( 2026:HHC:22132 ) ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to produce entire record pertaining to the case, for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.” 2. Facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that father of the petitioner, late Shri Milkhi Ram superannuated from service of the Transport Corporation as an Inspector on 31.01.2003. He passed away on 21.07.2014, leaving behind his two sons, namely, Ajay Kumar (petitioner) and Arun Parvana. In terms of the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner was dependent upon his father at the time of his death, as he is 55% disabled, which is also evident from Annexure P-3, i.e., Disability Certificate of the petitioner. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was entitled for receipt of family pension after the death of his father, however, he was not released the same, though in the year 2014, he had approached the Competent Authority. Thereafter, in the year, 2018, he again submitted a representation alongwith requisite documents and it was only w.e.f. 22.03.2022 that family pension was released in favour of the petitioner, in terms of Annexure P-7. The prayer of the petitioner is that the respondents be directed to grant family pension to him from the due date alongwith arrears. 3. ( 2026:HHC:22132 ) 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in light of the fact that mother of the petitioner had passed away before the death of his father and the brother of the petitioner was major at the time when their father passed away, the petitioner was the only one entitled for family pension on account of his physical disability. He further submitted that the petitioner was entitled for family pension from the due date, i.e., from the date of death of his father and denial thereof to the petitioner up to 22.03.2022 is bad in law. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation submitted that the factum of the petitioner suffering from physical disability was not within the knowledge of the Corporation. He submitted that this fact came to the notice of the Corporation only in the year 2018 when a representation was filed by the petitioner through his brother and thereafter, after completion of all procedural formalities, the petitioner was granted family pension in terms of Annexure P-7. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the pleadings as well as the documents on record, this Court is of the considered view that though it is not in dispute that the petitioner was entitled to receive family pension after the demise of his father, however, as there is nothing on record to demonstrate the fact that disability of the petitioner was in the 4. ( 2026:HHC:22132 ) knowledge of the Corporation up till the year 2018, it would not be prudent to direct the respondent-Corporation to pay the family pension, including arrears of pension to the petitioner as from the death of his father. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, on instructions, submits that the petitioner shall be satisfied in case this petition is disposed of with the direction that the family pension be released in favour of the petitioner from the month of August, 2018. 8. In light of the fact that in terms of Annexure P-7, family pension has been sanctioned and released in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 22.03.2022, which itself demonstrates that even as per respondent-Corporation, the petitioner was entitled to family pension after demise of his father, however, as observed hereinabove, because it was only in the month of August, 2018 that process was initiated on the representation of the petitioner to grant him family pension, the act of the respondent-Corporation of granting family pension to the petitioner only w.e.f. 22.03.2022 is not sustainable in law. The petitioner was at least entitled for grant of family pension when he had approached the Corporation, i.e., in the month of August, 2018. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that interest of justice would be served in case this petition is disposed of 5. ( 2026:HHC:22132 ) by directing the respondent-Corporation to pay the petitioner family pension as from the month of August, 2018. Ordered accordingly. 9. The petition is disposed of with the direction that he respondent-Corporation shall pay family pension to the petitioner with effect from the month of August, 2018 and arrears from the month of August, 2018 up to 22.03.2022 be released in favour of the petitioner within a period of three months from today. In case the arrears are released within the said period, then no interest shall be payable thereupon, but, in case the arrears are not paid within the said period, then arrears shall entail interest @ 6% per annum from the date of judgment. The statement of learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, that the petitioner shall not claim any arrears from the date of death of his father up till the month of July, 2018 is taken on record. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 15, 2026 (bhupender)