IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 11662 of 2008. (OA No.442/2004) Date of Decision: 12th August, 2011. _______________________________________________________ Trilok Chand and others .. Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and others. .. Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. G.R. Palsara, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. _________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J (Oral). The original petitioner Devi Ram was a Constable in respondent-department. He was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. His appeal was dismissed by the High Court. He filed Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court and during the pendency of the said appeal in the apex Court, after attaining the age of superannuation, he stood retired on 29.2.1988. He was sanctioned provisional pension in 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - terms of Rule 69 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. His Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 24.2.1997 upholding the conviction and sentence. Consequently, he underwent the sentence. 2. During the pendency of this petition, petitioner Devi Ram died. His legal representatives were brought on record vide order dated 5th September, 2007. 3. The case of the respondents is that the deceased petitioner is not entitled for the pensionary benefits as having been convicted by the Court, but according to the successors of the petitioner, he had already made a representation on 28.11.2003 (Annexure A-1) to the respondents. Thereafter legal notice dated 7.7.2004 (Annexure A-2) was also served upon the respondents through his Advocate, but the respondent-department did not decide his said representation and is still pending. 4. The successors of the petitioner feel satisfied in case a time-bound direction is given to the respondent-department to finally dispose of the aforesaid pending representation. Therefore, there shall be a direction to respondent No.2 to finally dispose of the pending representation of the deceased petitioner within a period of three months from the production of this judgment/order, after - 3 - affording an opportunity of hearing to the successors of the deceased, personally or to their duly authorized agent. 5. With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. August 12th, 2011. (Surinder Singh), (rc) Judge.