Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.1599 of 2008. Dated of Decision : July 1, 2011. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mathu Ram. ……… Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others. …….. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner : Mr. Lokinder Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Central Govt. Standing Counsel. Surinder Singh, J (oral): By means of this petition, petitioner has sought the release of his pension, which has been withheld by the respondents without any rhyme and reason. 2. As a matter of fact, the petitioner served in Indian Tibet Border Police (I.T.B.P.) and retired as Head Constable on 30.4.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation. He submitted his pension papers in January, 2007 and disclosed the name of nominee “Kamla Devi” as his wife, in place of “Radhi Devi”, who was shown earlier as his wife in his service - 2 - book. Thus, the respondents rejected the claim of pension, on the ground that the petitioner could not have married again during the subsistence of first marriage. Thus, he was accordingly informed vide letter dated 12.1.2008 (Annexure P-3) that it was a misconduct and issued notice under Rule 8(3) of the CCS (Pension) Rules. 3. The petitioner served legal notice dated 9.6.2008 (Annexure P-8) on the respondents through his Advocate submitting that in the year 1976, his earlier wife Radhi Devi sought customary divorce, thereafter he had solemnized marriage with Kamla Devi, which fact was brought in the notice of the respondents by him on 19.3.1977 by moving an application to change the name of nominee in the service-book. The said notice was not responded, hence the present petition. 4. The petitioner had already submitted to the respondents, the copy of the certificate obtained from the Revenue Authorities with respect to the members of the family - 3 - containing necessary particulars, who were dependant upon him, which includes the name of Kamla Devi as his wife. These facts averred by the petitioner are duly supported by his affidavit, which has not been controverted by the respondents nor any record has been produced to the effect that the above facts are wrong or that the earlier marriage with her is subsisting. 5. Admittedly, the show cause notice alleged to have been issued against the petitioner remained in limbo, the respondents neither held any inquiry in this behalf, nor released his pension till today i.e. for about 4 years have elapsed, from the date of his retirement, in the above circumstances, respondents are not at all legally justified to withhold the pension of the petitioner. 6. The respondents are accordingly directed to release the pension of the petitioner alongwith all other retiral benefits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment, failing - 4 - which, it shall carry an interest @ 12% per annum from the date it fell due. The petition stands disposed of. (Surinder Singh) Judge July 1, 2011. (Pds)