IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. (T) No. 7328 of 2008. Decided on 3rd March, 2011. _____________________________________________________ Promila Devi. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 to 4. : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. For respondent No. 5. : Mr. Varun Chandel, Advocate vice Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner’s husband was enrolled in the Police Department in the year 1960. He retired on 11.03.1990. He has contracted two marriages. First marriage was solemnized with Hima Devi and thereafter, he solemnized his second marriage as per the averments contained in the petition with the petitioner. 2. From the wedlock of Tek Chand and Smt. Hima Devi, a daughter, namely, Jayoti was born, whereas from the wedlock of Tek Chand and Smt. Promila Devi, three children, namely Vijay Kumar, Arun Kumar and Monika were born. According to the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. service record, Hima Devi has been shown as first wife of Shri Tek Chand and the petitioner has been shown as second wife. The pension papers were processed. The respondents have sanctioned 50% of the family pension in favour of Jyoti and 50% of the pension was payable as under: “Shri Vijay Kumar, S/o Sh. Tek Chand upto 9.5.95 or the date he starts earning his livelihood whichever is earlier and thereafter to Sh. Arun Kumar upto 2.2.99 or the date he starts earning his livelihood whichever is earlier. Thereafter, Kumari Moniki upto 15.4.2003 or marriage or the date she starts earning her livelihood whichever is earlier.” 3. There is no illegality in Annexure R-2. Petitioner being the second wife, was not entitled to any family pension. Only her children were entitled to 50% of the family pension. 4. Ms. Archana Dutt, learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to substantiate how Annexure R-II is bad in law. The family pension has been correctly apportioned between Jyoti and children of the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge March 03, 2011. (bhupender)