IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15856 of 2009 Date of Decision: October 15, 2009 Sudershan Narang .....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. 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. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been contended that husband of the petitioner CWP No.15856 of 2009 [2] namely Amar Nath Narang was serving as Draftsman in the Department of Horticulture, Punjab. Husband of the petitioner died in July 1994 while in service. Family Pension was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. In view of the circumstances under which husband of the petitioner died, son of the petitioner namely Mahesh Narang was given appointment on compassionate ground, as a Clerk on 29.4.1994. The petitioner was being paid Family Pension as also Dearness Allowance on Family Pension. It seems that Dearness Allowance on Family Pension was not payable to the surviving spouse in case a family member gets appointment on compassionate ground. In this view of the matter, the respondents propose recovery from the Family Pension of the petitioner, of the amount of Dearness Allowance paid in excess. 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’. In regard to recovery, learned counsel relies on judgment rendered by the CWP No.15856 of 2009 [3] Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2799 of 2008 (Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others), decided on 22.5.2009. Learned counsel for the respondents states that indeed the issue would be covered by the judgment rendered in 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. In relation to recovery, it is evident that the petitioner has not played any fraud or misrepresentation to actuate release of Dearness Allowance even after appointment of Mahesh Narang on compassionate ground. In view of the above, 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. The respondents would not be entitled to effect recovery from the petitioner. Consequently, it is directed that the amount recovered in the interregnum period would be CWP No.15856 of 2009 [4] refunded to the petitioner within a period of four months of receipt of certified copy of the order. (AJAI LAMBA) October 15, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?