IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.644 of 2026 Decided on: 8th January, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Suman Lata …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. B.R. Dhiman, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. Petitioner’s husband-late Sh. Suman Kumar was statedly employed with the respondent-Irrigation & Public Health Department/Jal Shakti Vibhag. As per the case set up, he suffered severe injuries during discharge of his official duties. Respondents compulsorily retired him 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 under the provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 on 17.09.2014. Petitioner’s husband died on 02.03.2015. Petitioner’s grievance is that the respondents have though paid the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) and family pension to the petitioner, but at normal rate. Respondents have ignored the component of enhanced family pension. That the respondents have not taken into consideration the fact that the injuries suffered by petitioner’s husband were attributable to the service rendered by him and the service conditions. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner represented many times to the respondents for enhanced payment of DCRG as payable to the employees, who die in harness, but the aforesaid representations have not solicited any response. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner had lastly represented on 07.11.2025 (Annexure P-7) to respondent No.5. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied in case respondent No.5/competent authority is directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representation in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 3 5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 07.11.2025 (Annexure P-7) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 08, 2026 Judge Mukesh