IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Review No.12 of 2007 and CMPM No.201 of 2007 Decided on: June 3, 2009 Smt. Savitri Devi ......Petitioner. VERSUS Union of India and others ......Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Raj Kumar, vice Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India. ___________________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, J (Oral) CMPM No.201/2007 Reply to the application has not been filed. That suggests that the respondents have no serious objection to the condonation of delay. Hence, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the Civil Review petition is condoned. Civil Review No.12/2007 Review of this Court order, dated 20th October, 2006, has been sought, whereby writ petition filed by the review petitioner, seeking grant of pension for the death of her son, who was a Sepoy in the Assam Rifles, has been disposed of, with the observation that under the Scheme, notified on 21st July, 1999, Annexure R-1/A, effective from 1st January, 1998, pension has been granted to the review petitioner. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ...2... Review has been sought, on the ground that when the matter was taken up for hearing, on 20th October, 2006, counsel for the petitioner was not present and an Advocate appeared on his behalf but he was not having the brief with him. It is stated that this Court has wrongly noted, in its order, that the deceased was employed in the Indian Army and that in fact he was an employee of Assam Rifles and was governed by Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, in the matter of grant of family pension. I have gone through the record of the writ petition, as also the order dated 20th October, 2006. Though, in the initial paragraph, while recording the facts, it has been noticed that the deceased was a Sepoy in the Indian Army, yet in the remaining portion of the order, he has been shown to be a Sepoy of Assam Rifles. It is not in dispute that the review petitioner has been granted pension, with effect from 1st January, 1998, in terms of Notification dated 21st July, 1999, Annexure R-1/A. It was not the case of the petitioner, in the writ petition, that the deceased was governed by Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, in the matter of grant of family pension. The petitioner simply claimed that she was entitled to pension from the date of the death of her son, which took place in the year 1994. Respondents took the stand that the dependents of personnel of Assam Rifles were not earlier entitled to family pension and that the pension scheme was introduced, for the first time, vide notification Annexure R-1/A, effective from 1st January, 1998. In view of the abovestated position, there is no error apparent on the record. So, the present petition for recalling the order, dated 20th October, 2006, is dismissed. June 3, 2009(sd) (Surjit Singh), J.