IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17207 of 2009 Date of Decision: November 11, 2009 Paramjit Kaur .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. O.P. Gabba, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This shall dispose of three petitions viz. Civil Writ Petition No.17207 of 2009, `Paramjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Others’, Civil Writ Petition No.17227 of 2009, `Pritam Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Others’, and Civil Writ Petition No.17250 of 2009, `Sudesh Kumari vs. State of Punjab & Others’, as common questions of facts are involved. For reference to record, Civil Writ Petition No.17207 of 2009, `Paramjit Kaur vs. CWP No.17207 of 2009 [2] State of Punjab & Others’ is being taken up. This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Order dated 6.10.2009 (Annexure P-4) whereby recovery of Rs.60312/- has been ordered from Family Pension of the petitioner. Perusal of Annexure P-4 indicates that because son of the petitioner had been given appointment on compassionate ground, the petitioner was not entitled to payment of Dearness Allowance on Family Pension. In view of this, the amount paid in excess to the petitioner was recoverable which has been deducted @ 4,000/- per month for 11 months by virtue of the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had not played any fraud and had not misrepresented the facts to actuate the payment of Dearness Allowance on Family Pension. It has been pointed out that husband of the petitioner died while in service on 4.12.2001. The petitioner being the surviving spouse was paid Family Pension and Dearness Allowance on Family Pension. Son of the petitioner was given CWP No.17207 of 2009 [3] appointment on compassionate ground on 1.10.2007. Under the instructions of the Department of Finance, Dearness Allowance was not payable. The petitioner had no role to play in the release of payment of Dearness Allowance. Learned counsel contends that the issue raised in this petition is squarely 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. Considering the facts and CWP No.17207 of 2009 [4] circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the matter is covered by Mukhtiar Singh’s case (supra). 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.” In view of the above, all the three petitions are 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. It is held that the respondents would have no right to effect recovery from the CWP No.17207 of 2009 [5] petitioner. Consequently, the respondents shall refund the amount already recovered from the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (AJAI LAMBA) November 11, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?