IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 9736 of 2008 Date of decision: 13.12.2010 Mrs. Asha Rani Gupta. ……….Petitioner Versus Dr. Y.S.Parmar University &Ors. ……….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the petitioner : Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rupindrer Singh, Advocate No.1 and 2. For the respondent : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate No.3. General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) The petitioner’s husband was serving in the respondent- University. He expired in 1994. The petitioner was entitled to family pension. Vide Annexure P-VI dated 02.07.2003, the petitioner has been asked to refund Rs.49,519/- towards over payment of family pension to the petitioner. Thereafter, installments were fixed as per Annexure P-VIII dated 27.08.2003. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been heard before issuance of Annexure P-VI, dated 02.07.2003 and Annexure P-VIII, dated 27.08.2003. The petitioner has suffered 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?. No 2 civil consequences. Since, the petitioner has not been heard before issuance of Annexure P-VI and Annexure P-VIII, the writ petition is allowed and Annexure P-VI and annexure P-VIII dated 2.7.2003 and 27.8.2003 respectively are quashed and set aside. In normal circumstances, the respondent ought to have been granted liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law, however, since the husband of the petitioner has died in 1994 and she being widow, the proceedings are closed. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no orders as to costs. December 13, 2010. ( Rajiv Sharma) (krt) Judge