IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Review Petition (T) No. 46 of 2008 Date of decision: 09.11.2010 _________________________________________________________ Kamla Chamola. .....Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. & others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Vineet Guleria, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 & 2: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General. For respondents No. 3 & 4: Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. V.K. Sharma, J (Oral). On 26th October, 2010, the following order was passed by this Court in this matter: Though respondents No. 3 & 4 are already ex parte, yet they have every right to join further proceedings. Ordered accordingly. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of these respondents. The learned counsel prays for and is granted permission to bring on record a photo copy of communication dated 25.10.2010 sent by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla to the Principal Secretary-cum-F.C. (UD) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2, which is to the following effect: “Kindly refer to your office letter Endst. No. UD-E(3)-33/1999 dated 5/10/2009, received in this 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ...2... office on 8/10/2010, on the subject cited above. In this context it is intimated that provision pension payment order of Director (UD), HP, Shimla-2, vide letter No. UD-II (B)(10)-267/98-14516 dated 1/10/99, the pension @ Rs. 9219/- per month were being released to Sh. Bhim Dutt Chamola, upto 28/6/2010. Since, Sh. Bhim Dutt Chamola, has been expired on 28/6/2010 and thereafter the family pension to the tune of Rs. 6598/- is being paid to the wife of the deceased Sh. Bhim Dutt Chamola. This is for your information please.” In view of the fact that as per the aforesaid communication dated 25.10.2010, family pension to the tune of Rs. 6598/- is already being paid to the wife of the deceased Shri Bhim Dutt Chamola, the learned counsel for the petitioners would be well advised to obtain instructions from the petitioners as to whether even now any surviving claim remains to be adjudicated in the present petition. The learned counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4 shall also ascertain whether any other retiral benefit qua the deceased is still payable to the petitioners. 2. However, today neither the learned counsel for the petitioner nor the learned vice counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 3 and 4 has come up with the requisite instructions in terms of the aforesaid order dated 26th October, 2010. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the import of the aforesaid order dated 26th October, 2010, coupled with the communication dated 25th October, 2010, referred to therein, the present review petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioners to move respondent No. 3 within four weeks from today alongwith copy of this judgment for grant of any surviving claim, including any pending retiral benefit qua the deceased employee, late Shri Bhim Dutt Chamola, and in ...3... that event respondent No. 3 shall finally decide and dispose of the representation after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner within a further period of three months. 4. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 9th November, 2010 (virender)