IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15481 of 2009 Date of Decision: October 08, 2009 Manjit Kaur .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to effect recovery from the Family Pension of the petitioner. It has been brought out that Hardev Singh, husband of the petitioner, was serving as a Teacher. Hardev Singh died on 17.2.2002 while in service. Family Pension was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. In view of the circumstances under which husband of the petitioner had died, son of the petitioner was given employment on compassionate ground in the Department of Education, Punjab on CWP No.15481 of 2009 [2] 3.11.2004. Be that as it may, the petitioner was paid Dearness Allowance on Family Pension which, after the appointment of son of the petitioner on compassionate ground, was not payable. At this juncture, the amount already paid, is sought to be recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the matter is covered by judgment dated 20.1.2004 rendered by the Division Bench while dealing with Civil Writ Petition No.891 of 2003 titled `Mukhtiar Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Others’. Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Heard. It has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the issue raised in this petition is covered by Mukhtiar Singh’s case (supra). Learned counsel has pointed out that the State of Punjab had gone up in appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The appeal has been dismissed and therefore, the judgment [Mukhtiar Singh’s case (supra)] has attained finality. I have considered the matter. CWP No.15481 of 2009 [3] Operative part of Mukhtiar Singh’s case (supra) reads as under:- “In so far as the first issue is concerned, the controversy in hand stands adjudicated upon by the Apex Court in HSEB and Ors. Vs. 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 respondent recovery of dearness allowance wrongly paid to the petitioners. It is not a matter of dispute between the parties that the payment of dearness allowance to the petitioners 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 Vs. State of Haryana & Others, 1994(5) SLR- 753, we are satisfied that the recovery should not be 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.” Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed in the same limited terms as decision rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.891 of 2003 titled ‘Mukhtiar Singh vs. State of Punjab & Others’ decided on 20.1.2004, relevant portion of which has been extracted above. (AJAI LAMBA) October 08, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? CWP No.15481 of 2009 [4]