2026:HHC:24380 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.1777 of 2020 Decided on: 22.06.2026 Uploaded on: 23.06.2026 Dassi Devi ...Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. M.A Safee, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vishav Deep Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2-State. None for respondent No.3. Names of respondents No.4 & 5 stand deleted. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner by way of present petition has prayed for the following substantive relief:- “a. That the respondents may be directed to releas retiral benefits of Late Shri Sohanoo Ram to the applicant including, pension, exgratia payment & provident fund with interest @18%.” 2. The facts as emerge from pleadings are that the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:24380 husband of the petitioner late Shri Sahnoo was working as Beldar with the respondents-State, who expired on 05.04.1993. Earlier, he was married to one Smt. Ramkoo Devi and after separation from her on 14.05.1976, he solemnized marriage with the petitioner and out of the wedlock, two sons namely Jagdish and Hem Chand were born. After the death of late Shri Sahnoo, the petitioner being his wife made a representation to the respondents- State to release retiral benefits in her favour and also to offer her appointment or to her son. However, when no retiral benefits were released to her on account of death of her husband including pension, ex-gratia payment, gratuity and provident fund etc. and further not gave her appointment on compassionate grounds, she approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’), by filing OA No.3087 of 1994, titled, Smt. Dassi Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another, which was disposed of on 15.12.1994, treating the same as representation to respondent No.1 who was asked to consider the case of the petitioner on merits in accordance with law. After the disposal of the original application, the respondents-State offered the appointment 3 2026:HHC:24380 to the son of the petitioner and also released the retiral benefits i.e. DCRG, leave encashment and GPF amounting to Rs.32,588/-, Rs.2,820/- and Rs.34,082/- respectively, in favour of the family of the deceased late Shri Sahnoo Ram. Respondent No.3 did not release the family pension to the petitioner and raised objection that the pension papers/documents reveal that Shri Sahnoo Ram had two wives Smt. Ramkoo Devi and Smt. Dassi. As per Government of India Decision-15 below Rule 54 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, second marriage solemnized during the life time of first wife cannot be held valid on the ground of any custom. The date of marriage of Smt. Dassi Devi was still awaited and same be intimated as early as possible as evident from communication dated 09.12.2013 (Annexure A-4). 3. The petitioner has thus approached this Court on the grounds that the action on the part of the respondents in not releasing the pensionary benefits to her since 1993 is illegal, arbitrary, malafide, discriminatory and against the well-established principles of natural justice as well as violative of the mandatory provisions of the Constitution of India. 4 2026:HHC:24380 4. Respondents No.1 & 2 filed reply to the petition. They have not disputed the factum that late Sh. Sahnoo Ram was working as work charge Beldar with the Department and died on 05.04.1993. It is also not disputed that as per record, at the time of engagement of late Sh. Sahnoo Ram, he had only one legally wedded wife namely Smt. Ramkoo Devi. However, after separation from his first wife Smt. Ramkoo Devi on 14.05.1976, he had solemnized second marriage with the petitioner. From first marriage, had one daughter Smt. Kamla Devi was born and from second marriage with the petitioner, two sons namely Sh.Jagdish Chand and Sh. Hem Chand were born. After death of late Sh. Sahnoo Ram, his son namely Sh. Jagdish Chand, being legal heir was appointed as Beldar in the respondent-Department on compassionate ground who is working as regular Beldar w.e.f. 20.05.2004. It has further been averred that after the death of late Sh. Sahnoo Ram, the retiral benefits mentioned above have been paid in equal shares to all the legal representatives including Smt. Kamla Devi, daughter from the first wife vide voucher dated 22.05.2001. The petitioner had claimed the family pension and the respondents-State after attending the observations 5 2026:HHC:24380 made by the Accountant General (A&E) i.e. respondent No.3 had resubmitted the case on 29.11.2012 followed by letter dated 21.10.2013. However, respondent No.3 again returned the case with the observation to supply details of the children from both wives alongwith their date of births, marital status and copy of family register, but the petitioner has failed to supply the desired documents. The petitioner instead of supplying the documents has filed the original application which is present petition. 5. Respondent No.3 filed separate reply and submitted that the petition is not maintainable, as it pertains to the grant of family pension to the petitioner, who is second wife of late Sh. Sahnoo Ram, whose marriage was solemnized during the subsistence of first marriage and thus, she is not entitled for grant of family pension as per CCS Pension Rules. It has further been averred that as per letter dated 13.05.2015 sent by respondent-Department, it was intimated that Smt. Ramkoo Devi has not been shown as wife of late Sh. Sahnoo Ram in Parivar register. Respondent-Department was requested to send the copy of personal file of late Sh. Sahnoo Ram alongwith details of children born from each wedlock with date of birth, marital 6 2026:HHC:24380 status and a copy of divorce certificate with Smt. Ramkoo Devi, which have not been received so far. As and when requisite documents are received, the family pension case of the eligible family member will be processed. 6. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply filed by respondents No.1 & 2 and controverted the facts pleaded therein. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 8. It is evident from the reply filed by respondents No.1 & 2 that husband of the petitioner was earlier married to one Smt. Ramkoo Devi. However, after separation from his first wife on 14.05.1976, he solemnized second marriage with the petitioner and out of the wedlock, two sons namely Jagdish and Hem Chand were born. After the death of late Sh. Sahnoo Ram, one son namely Jagdish has been offered appointment on compassionate grounds. From the above facts, it is crystal clear that the deceased had got separated from his first wife on 14.05.1976 and only thereafter he got solemnized marriage with the petitioner. 9. It is by now settled in catena of judgments that even if the person resides under one roof without even 7 2026:HHC:24380 solemnizing marriage it could be construed that since they were living together, they have remained as husband and wife. Not only this once the respondents-State had given the specific date that late Sh. Sahnoo Ram was separated from his first wife on 14.05.1976, it is not for respondent No.3 to raise objection that the deceased had solemnized marriage with the petitioner during life time of first wife, which cannot be held valid on the ground of any custom. Furthermore, after death of late Sh. Sahnoo Ram, one son of the petitioner born out of the wedlock with late Sh. Sahnoo Ram, was offered appointment by respondents-State, which clearly shows that the marriage with the petitioner was legal and valid. Respondent No.2 had also informed respondent No.3 vide letter dated 13.05.2015 (Annexure A- 5) that Smt. Ramku Devi has not been shown as wife of late Sh. Sahnoo Ram in the parivar nakal register. Respondent No.2 had also enclosed the legal heirs certificate in original, copy of parivar register, copy of order dated 10.07.2014 from SDM (Rural) Shimla, showing date of marriage and date of birth certificate alongwith Service Book Part-I,II & III. However, despite receipt of the said documents, respondent No.3 has not granted pension to the petitioner, which action 8 2026:HHC:24380 is totally illegal and untenable in law. Once respondents- State with whom late Sh. Sahnoo Ram was working has no objection to pay the pension, it is not understood that why respondent No.3 is raising untenable objections and asking for documents which are otherwise not required. 10. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant the family pension to the petitioner within three months from today. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be granted pension on notional basis w.e.f. April, 1993 and actual pension from three years prior to the date of filing the present petition. In case the arrears of pension are not released in favour of the petitioner within three months from today, the respondents shall pay interest @6% per annum from today till its actual payment to her. The interest shall be recovered from the erring officers/officials. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 22 nd June , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge