R.S.A No. 61 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- R.S.A No. 61 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision :- 23.9.2010 State of Haryana & Ors. .... Appellants Vs. Savita Yadav .... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH. Present:- Mr. P.S.Sullar, DAG, Haryana. Gurdev Singh, J This second appeal by the State of Haryana and others – appellants/defendants has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 31.7.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Rewari, vide which he dismissed their appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), decreeing the suit of plaintiff/respondent – Smt. Savita Yadav, for declaration to the effect that she is entitled to dearness allowance on the family pension from the very date of its sanctioning, along with the arrears and interest thereon @18% per annum, though the interest was reduced from 18% per annum to 12% per annum. The facts of that suit are that the husband of the plaintiff namely R.S.A No. 61 of 2010 (O&M) -2- P.S.Yadav, was in service of Haryana Health Department, when he died in harness on 13.10.1992. The plaintiff was appointed in the same department on compassionate ground and was also allowed family pension w.e.f. 14.10.1992. Dearness allowance was initially sanctioned on the family pension, but subsequently the same was recovered by the defendants without assigning any reason. She claimed dearness allowance on the family pension from the date of the sanctioning thereof. In the written statement defendants pleaded that, as per the instructions of the Government dated 31.1.2001, the dearness allowance was allowed on the family pension w.e.f. 12.12.2005 and arrears for the period from 12.12.2005 till 31.7.2007, amounting to Rs.15305/-, have already been credited to her account. She was not entitled to the dearness allowance on the family pension from the date of sanction of that pension itself. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?OPP 2. Relief. To succeed, the plaintiff examined herself as PW-1 and Ashok (PW-2). The defendants examined Sumer Singh (DW-1) to prove number of documents, including letters dated 31.1.2001 (Ex.D1) and 2.1.2006 (Ex.D2). After going through the evidence, so produced and hearing learned counsel for the plaintiff and District Attorney for the defendants, learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The defendants R.S.A No. 61 of 2010 (O&M) -3- preferred an appeal against that judgment and decree, which was dismissed except with modification regarding the rate of interest, which was reduced from 18% per annum to 12% per annum, as aforesaid. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. It has been submitted by learned State counsel that, as per the letter dated 2.1.2006 (Ex.D2), the dearness allowance on the family pension is payable to the plaintiff only w.e.f. 12.12.2005. She was not entitled to any such dearness allowance as per instructions Ex.D1, vide letter dated 31.1.2001. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court committed an illegality while allowing the dearness allowance from the date of sanctioning of the family pension itself. On the other hand, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent that in addition to these instructions, the plaintiff is entitled to the dearness allowance as was held by Division Bench of this Court as reported in Smt. Swaran Kaur Vs. The State of Punjab & Ors , 1997(1) R.S.J 325 and as such there is no ground for up-setting the judgments of the lower Courts, which do not suffer any such illegality. In view of the above submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides, the following substantial question of law arises in this appeal:- “Whether the plaintiff was entitled to dearness allowance on the family pension from the date of sanctioning thereof i.e. 14.10.1992 and not w.e.f. 12.12.2005?” The judgment cited by learned counsel for the plaintiff has no application to the facts of the case. That was a case of Punjab Government R.S.A No. 61 of 2010 (O&M) -4- and in that case, no such instructions, as have been relied upon by the defendants in the present case, were placed on the record. The question involved in that suit was: Whether the petitioner was entitled to the dearness allowance on the family pension when she was already in service of the State Government? It was held therein that all family pensioners are entitled to the dearness allowance on the family pensions. That finding cannot have universal application in all the cases, especially in those cases where instructions have been issued by the respective governments regarding the payment of the dearness allowance from a specific date and not from the sanctioning thereof. As per letter dated 31.1.2001 (Ex. D1), regarding the grant of dearness allowance relief on family pension, when a person is in receipt of the family pension is employed in the State Government on compassionate ground in lieu of the death of the employee in whose respect the family pension was sanctioned, the dearness relief on the family pension was not admissible. However, that letter was reviewed vide letter dated 2.1.2006 (Ex. D2), and the dearness relief on the family pension was allowed even in respect of the employees employed on compassionate grounds, but the same was allowed only w.e.f. 12.12.2005. Thus, the plaintiff was entitled to dearness allowance/dearness relief on the family pension only w.e.f 12.12.2005, which has already been allowed to her by the defendants and the arrears were credited to her account. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court committed an illegality while mis-interpreting the contents of the above said letters in allowing the dearness to the plaintiff from the date of the sanctioning of the R.S.A No. 61 of 2010 (O&M) -5- family pension itself. The above raised question of law is decided against the plaintiff. In the result, this appeal is hereby accepted. The judgments and decree of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court are set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. September 23, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge