Civil Writ Petition No. 16360 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 16360 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: JULY 7, 2011 Phuljit Kaur .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Gaurav Goyal, Advocate for Mr. R.C. Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds on account of death of her husband. She was drawing the family pension along with dearness allowance as well as medical allowance. Finding that the petitioner was drawing two dearness allowances, a recovery of ` 1,09,759/- was ordered against her. The petitioner has, accordingly, filed this writ petition to impugn the order of recovery on the ground that there was no misrepresentation on her Civil Writ Petition No. 16360 of 2009 -2- part and even if two dearness allowances were paid to her, the recovery cannot be effected. In the reply filed, the State would point out to the documents which contains a certificate submitted by the petitioner declaring that she was not employed or re-employed in the office and also some other averments. From this, State counsel would contend that the petitioner has made a misrepresentation which led to payment of excess dearness allowance. Accordingly, the case of the petitioner would not be covered by the ratio of law laid down in Budh Ram & others Vs. State of Haryana & others, 2009 (3) SCT 333. Since the petitioner seems to have misrepresented while claiming dearness allowance, it can be said that she has misrepresented. No case for interference, thus, is made out. Dismissed. July 07, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) monika JUDGE Civil Writ Petition No. 16360 of 2009 -3-