C.W.P. No.15808 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.15808 of 2009 Date of Decision.11.11.2011 Amarjit Kaur wife of Kuldip Singh and another .....Petitioners Versus State of Punjabi through Secretary Rural and Development and Panchayat Department, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG, Punjab for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Ms. Jatinder Jit Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.4. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioners challenge the recovery ordered for the old age pension already given to the petitioners from October, 2006 to September 2008 on the ground that during enquiry the entitlement for pension was found to be incorrect. Admittedly, no notice had been given to the petitioners before cancellation of the entitlement of old age pension nor did they have an opportunity to participate in the so- called enquiry where the entitlement to pension was found to be incorrect. The State relies on alleged statement of the Sarpanch, who has been cited as 4th respondent that the petitioner's son is residing abroad. The 4th respondent has made an express averment in the C.W.P. No.15808 of 2009 -2- petition that he had not given any such statement nor could he give such a statement since his son is not living abroad. The 4th respondent has filed a written statement but he has not stated anywhere that he has given such a statement that the petitioner's son was residing abroad. I cannot also see as to how a mere residence of son abroad could disentitle a person, who is otherwise covered under the Scheme, to be paid the old age pension. It is not brought out anywhere that as a dependent father he had been securing the benefit of any assistance from the son. If the petitioners state that they do not obtain any assistance from their son and would look for the State assistance as per the terms of the Scheme, the petitioners could not have been denied the pension, which they were being paid. 2. The impugned order is set aside and the petitioners shall be entitled to continuously receive the old age pension as before. All the arrears have to be calculated and paid to the petitioners within a period of 8 weeks and the future monthly old age pension shall be paid to the petitioners as per the Rules. 3. The writ petition is disposed of. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 11, 2011 Pankaj*