IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 14977 of 2026. Decided on : 14 th September , 2026 Mithlesh Devi ...Petitioner. Versus Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Jutogh & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev K. Motta, Advocate For the respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Notice confined to respondent No.1 only. Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1. In view of the grievance raised by the petitioner, the documents placed on record, the submissions made by learned counsel on both sides and the order being passed hereinafter, there is no requirement to issue notice to respondents No. 2 and 3. Matter has accordingly been heard at this stage. 2. The case set up by the petitioner is that she is the widowed daughter of late Shri Deep Chand and late Smt. Sukhbiri Devi. Her parents were employees of respondent respondent No.1-Cantonment Board, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Jutogh, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner had preferred a representation on 10.12.2025 (Annexure P-6) to respondent No.1 with the averment that she was though daughter of Smt. Sukhbiri Devi and Shri Deep Chand but somehow in the family details in the service record of Smt. Sukhbiri Devi, petitioner's name was missed out. On this account, petitioner has not been paid pension by respondent No1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s name has been reflected as a legal heir of her deceased mother in the legal heir certificate issued by the competent authority. That apart her name has already been reflected as legal heir of late Shri Deep Chand, petitioner's father and husband of late Smt. Sukhbiri Devi. Petitioner’s father and mother were both in the employment of the respondents. 3. Respondent No.1 has rejected petitioner's case on 22.12.2025 (Annexure P-7) on the ground of her name having not been incorporated in the family details in service record of Smt. Sukhbiri Devi. Petitioner's case is that her mother was not literate and was serving as a Sanitary Supervisor with respondent No.1 and petitioner has been lawfully recognized as legal heir (daughter) of Smt. Sukhbiri Devi in view of legal heir certificate (Annexure P-1) issued by the competent authority on 24.04.2026. 3 4. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.1 to include the name of the petitioner in the family details of late Smt. Sukhbiri Devi, mother of the petitioner. The same be done with a week from today. Respondent No.1 shall take appropriate call in accordance with law within two weeks thereafter for ascertaining petitioner's entitlement to the pension in relation to service rendered by her mother, late Smt. Sukhbiri Devi. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 14th September, 2026. (jai)