C.W.P. No.5538 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.5538 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: JULY 31, 2009 Miss Kimmi Jaura .....PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and another ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.D.D. Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Puri, Addl.A.G.,Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The petitioner is the daughter of one Shri Baldev Singh, a deceased employee. He was working as Sanitary Inspector in the office of Municipal Corporation, Bathinda. He died on 2.5.2002. At the time of his death, the age of the petitioner was 16 years and she was dependent on her father. Being minor dependent of the deceased employee, she was granted family pension by the respondent-Corporation. Concededly, on attaining the age of 21 years, the petitioner got employment on compassionate grounds as a Clerk on 22.5.2006 in the respondent-Corporation. As such, from the said date the petitioner was not entitled for family pension as per Rule 4.3(i) of the Punjab Civil Service C.W.P. No.5538 of 2008 -2- Rules Vol. II, but the respondents have continuously paid the said family pension to her till September, 2007. When this mistake came to the notice of the respondent-Corporation, respondent No.2 passed the order dated 30.11.2007 (Annexure P1), whereby the family pension of the petitioner has been stopped from 1.9.2007 and recovery of an amount of Rs.1,06,891/- on account of excess payment of family pension from 22.5.2006 to 31.8.2007 has been ordered. The petitioner has challenged the said order in the present writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana, 1994 (5) SLR 753 and Purshotam Lal and others vs. State of Bihar and others, 2007(1) RSJ 150, and the Full Bench decision of this Court in Budh Ram and others vs. State of Haryana and others (CWP No.2799 of 2008, decided on 22.5.2009), argued that once the benefit was granted to the petitioner, the same cannot be withdrawn. I do not find any force in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As per Para 4.3(i) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol. II, family pension is payable to son/daughter including widowed/divorced daughter till he/she attains the age of 25 years or up to the date of his/her marriage/remarriage or till he/she starts earning his/her livelihood, whichever is earlier. Concededly, the petitioner attained majority and got employment on 22.5.2006, therefore, after the said date she was not entitled to any amount towards family pension. She did not intimate to the authorities about her appointment on attaining the age of majority and she continued to receive the family pension for which she was not entitled to. She cannot be allowed to take two C.W.P. No.5538 of 2008 -3- benefits at the same time, one in the shape of employment on compassionate grounds and other family pension. Thus, it is because of that inaction/lapse on her part, the amount of family pension was being paid to her illegally from 22.5.2006 to 31.8.2007. The petitioner cannot be allowed to take the benefit of her own wrong on the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments. The excess payment made to the petitioner under mistake on account of non-supplying the correct information by the petitioner herself, is liable to be recovered from the petitioner. Thus, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and the same does not require any interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. July 31, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE