THE BRANCH MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, JAHU, TEHSIL BHORANJ, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR (H.P.) Vs. SMT. SITA DEVI WD/O LATE SHRI BHUP SINGH R/O VILLAGE BAROT, P.O. BALDWARA, TEHSIL SARKAGHAT, DISTRICT MANDI (H.P.) AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A writ petition was filed by Smt. Sita Devi and her sons Kushal Kumar and Kamlesh Kumar claiming that Sita Devi was the lawfully wedded wife of Shri Bhup Singh and after the death of Shri Bhup Singh she and her sons were entitled to the family pension on account of the services rendered by Shri Bhup Singh with the Haryana Armed Police.

(2.) BHUP Singh was an employee of the Haryana Police and at the time of his retirement he was posted in the 5th Battalion of the Haryana Armed Police. There is no dispute that Kushal Kumar and Kamlesh Kumar are his sons. Smt. Sita Devi was admittedly the wife of Shri Bhup Singh but she was his second wife and had married Bhup Singh in the year 1975 when his first wife Smt. Jasoda Devi was still alive. Therefore, obviously the second marriage was illegal being against the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and as such her marriage could not be held to be legal and valid marriage. However, as per the pension Rules, the children born from such an illegal marriage are entitled to get family pension and therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly held that Kushal Kumar and Kamlesh Kumar are entitled to pension.

(3.) THE bank sent a communication annexure P -8 to Smt. Sita Devi on 17.11.2000 asking her to remit the balance amount of Rs.81,200/ - paid in excess in the account of Shri Bhup Singh. Another letter in this regard was again issued to her on 29.3.2001. The learned Single Judge has quashed these letters. The Bank is aggrieved by the quashing of these letters. We find that in the judgement, the learned Single Judge has not given any finding as to whether any payment in excess had been paid to Sh. Bhup Singh or not. As far as the recoveries made by the Bank are concerned, the learned Single Judge held that there was no material on record to show that any notice was issued to the petitioners. This is patently erroneous since annexure P -8 is a letter addressed to one of the petitioners asking them to pay the amount of Rs.81,200/ -. No further notice was required to be given. However, the concluding part of the judgement of the learned Single Judge reads as follows: -