IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No. 131 of 2026 in LPA No. 185 of 2026 Decided on: 07.04.2026 _____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. and others ...Applicants/appellants. Versus Narvada Sharma .........Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C.Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicants/appellants : Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) CMP(M) No.131 of 2026 Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by the affidavit of the official, delay of 170 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- ( 2026:HHC:11107 ) LPA No. 185 of 2026 2. The State seeks consideration of the order dated 09.05.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 9016 of 2022, titled Narvada Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and others, whereby the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of family pension in light of the decisions rendered in Roop Lal, Sunder Singh, and Balo Devi’s cases. 3. The learned Single Judge had also taken note of the fact that the SLP against the aforesaid decision was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 18.03.2025, in the case of Roop Lal. 4. Perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the case of the petitioner, as such, was that the writ petitioner’s husband was engaged as a daily wage driver in HPPWD Division, Solan, H.P. in the year 1984 and was granted work charge status/ regularization on 01.01.1995. He retired from service, as a driver, in the year 2004, after rendering more than 9 ½ years regular service but he was denied pension on the ground that he did not have the qualifying service of ten years. Therefore, the writ petitioner had not been held entitled -3- ( 2026:HHC:11107 ) for grant of family pension and the writ petition came to be filed only after his death on 09.08.2021, by his widow. 5. Keeping in view the settled position of law, as such, referred to in the judgment’s rendered by the learned Single Judge, the State has only sought to distinguish the case that judgment in Sunder Singh’s case was with regard to a Class-IV employee, whereas in the present case, the employee was a driver and belonging to Class-III category. However, it is not disputed that the judgment in Roop Lal’s case also extended the benefit to Class-III employees and as has been upheld by the Apex Court on 18.03.2025. 6. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to unsettle the matter, after the Apex Court has affirmed the said view. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, so also the pending application(s) if any. (G.S.Sandhawalia) Chief Justice 7th April, 2026 (Bipin C. Negi) (sushma) Judge