IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 4459/2008. Reserved on 5.3.2010. Decided on:8.4.2010. _______________________________________________ Smt.Pushpa Sharma and others. …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. _____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr.K.C.Sankhyan, vice Mr.Bhuvnesh Shama,Advocate. For Respondents 1&2: Mr.R.K.Sharma,Sr.Addl. Advocate General With Mr.Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General. For Respondednt:3. Mr.K.S.Rathore, Advocate. _____________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge The petitioner’s husband was appointed as Ahalmad on 1.4.1931 in the erestwhile State of Koti. He was allocated to the Mahasu District of Himachal Pradesh after the merger of the State. He mis-appropriated the government money. He dis-appeared on 23.9.1965. F.I.R. was registered on 24.12.1965 vide F.I.R. No. 101/65 against the husband of the petitioner. The challan was put up in the court of Magistrate Ist Class. The court declared him proclaimed offender. He was dismissed from service on 31.12.1968. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No . 2 The petitioner’s claim in a nutshell is that she is entitled to family pension after the disappearance of her husband in the year 1965. The case of the respondent-State is that since the petitioner’s husband has been dismissed from service on 31.12.1968, the petitioner is not entitled to any family pension. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. The petitioner’s husband while working as Reader of Magistrate Ist Class was involved in mis-appropriation of Government money. He dis-appeared on 23.9.1965. He was dismissed from service on 31.12.1968 by the Deputy Commissioner, Mahasu after seeking permission of the State Government. Petitioner has made several representations for payment of family pension. These representations were also made very belatedly in the year 1989 to 19th October, 1993. However, the petitioner has been paid General Provident Fund amounting to Rs. 1312/- w.e.f. April 1966 to 6.10.1994. Since the petitioner’s husband was dismissed from service on 31.12.1968, the petitioner is not entitled to any family pension. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as far as payment of family pension is concerned. However, the petitioner is entitled to the payment of interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of General Provident Fund amounting to Rs.1312/- w.e.f. April, 1966 till date. This amount be paid within a period of eight weeks from today. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. April 8, 2010(R) 3