IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 9606 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 23, 2009 SURINDER KAUR ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. RK Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) Ms. Surinder Kaur widow of Shri Ajit Singh has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ quashing recovery of money released to the petitioner as Dearness Allowance on family pension. It has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that her husband-Shri Ajit Singh was serving as a Constable in Punjab Police and expired in service, on 3.5.1986. The family pension was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. Shri Sukhwant Singh, son of the petitioner, was given employment on compassionate ground on 8.12.1988. Under the instructions of the respondent-State, Dearness Civil Writ Petition No. 9606 of 2009 2 Allowance is not payable to the surviving spouse in case a family member is given appointment on compassionate ground. The respondents are effecting recovery on that count and hence the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the matter is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court while dealing with CWP 891 of 2003 (Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 20.1.2004, relevant portion whereof reads as under:- “The controversy in hand raises two issues; namely, 1) whether the petitioners were entitled to dearness allowance on family pension, and 2) whether recovery could be effected in a situation wherein the recipients had not made any misrepresentation to the authorities. In so far as the first issue is concerned, the controversy in hand stands adjudicated upon the Apex Court in H.S.E.B. and Ors. Versus Azad Kaur (Civil Appeal No.5835 of 1998, decided on 18.8.1999). In view of the determination of the Apex Court on the issue under reference, we are satisfied that the claim of the petitioners for dearness allowance on family pension is misconceived. The first contention of the petitioner is, therefore, not accepted. The second issue relates to the recovery of dearness allowance wrongfully paid to the petitioners. It is not a matter of dispute between the parties that the payment of dearness allowance to the petitioners was was not based on any misrepresentation at their hands. It is clear that dearness allowance was wrongfully paid to the petitioners by the respondents unilaterally. That being so, in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Sahib Ram Versus The State of Haryana and others, 1994(5) SLR 753, we are satisfied that the recovery should not be Civil Writ Petition No. 9606 of 2009 3 effected from the petitioners. In view of the above, the instant writ petitions are dismissed in so far as the claim of the petitioners for dearness allowance on family pension is concerned, however, the prayer of the petitioners is allowed in respect of the recovery sought to be made from them. In case any recovery has been made from the petitioners in the interregnum, the same shall be refunded to the petitioners within a period of four months from today. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.” Learned counsel for the respondent-State admits that the issue raised by the petitioner is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Mukhtiar Singh's case (supra). Learned counsel for the respondent-State further states that an appeal was carried against the judgment of this Court in Mukhtiar Singh's case (supra). However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has dismissed the appeal. It being the conceded position that the matter is covered by the judgment rendered in Mukhtiar Singh's case (supra), this petition is allowed in terms of and to the extent of the judgment rendered in CWP 891 of 2003 (Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 20.1.2004, relevant portion whereof has been extracted above. September 23, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?