IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 19956 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 27th July, 2010. Vijay Kumar Petitioner through Mr. P.K.Gokalney, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. H.S.Brar, Addl.AG, Punjab. for respondent No.1 to 3. Mr. Vipul Dharmani, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 22.6.2009 [Annexure P-1] vide which recovery of the dearness relief, already paid to the petitioner's mother from 18.4.2001 to 30.4.2009 has been ordered. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that his father was working as Sweeper in the office of the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Malout. While in service, he died and the petitioner was appointed as Sweeper on compassionate grounds under the ex-gratia scheme of the State of Punjab. His mother was granted family pension. However, both the petitioner and his mother kept on getting the dearness component. It is the payment of dearness component to the petitioner's mother which is sought to be recovered by way of the impugned order. Learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the controversy herein is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner by a judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No. 1961 of 2010 [Manjit Kaur v State of Punjab & Ors.] decided on 27.04.2010. For the reasons already assigned in Manjit Kaur's case [supra], the writ petition is allowed in the same terms. Dasti. July 27, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE