CWP No.17768 of 2002 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C. W. P. No. 17768 of 2002 Date of Decision: 9 - 9 - 2010 Bimla Peter ....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Hemender Goswami, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Puri, Addl. A.G., Punjab. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that petitioner, who is a widow, was not paid the family pension alongwith dearness allowance in the revised pay scale. This Court on 1.9.2010 passed the following order:- “Counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner is a widow and is drawing family pension after the death of her husband Yunas Masih. Counsel states that w.e.f. 1.1.1996 after the Government had issued instructions, pension of the petitioner has not been revised and the Dearness Allowance to which she was entitled, has also not been paid to her. Ms.Ambika Luthra, Assistant Advocate General appearing for the State submits that it is the stand of CWP No.17768 of 2002 [2] respondents No.1 and 2 that only Treasury Officer has to disburse the pension, therefore, she is not able to assist this Court. For redressal of the grievance of a widow who was aged 59 years in 2002 and to assist this Court, District Treasury Officer, Ludhiana is directed to remain present in Court on the next date of hearing. List on 9.9.2010. A copy of this order attested by the Special Secretary of this Court be supplied to counsel for the State for onward transmission and compliance.” Mr.J.S.Puri, Additional Advocate General, Punjab on instructions from Mr.Rachhpal Singh, District Treasury Officer, Ludhiana has stated that entire arrears of family pension, after fixing the pension in revised pay scales, have been paid to the petitioner. It is stated that benefit of revised Dearness Allowance was also given till 14.5.2001 and thereafter the petitioner was not entitled to payment of revised Dearness Allowance because her son was given compassionate appointment by the State Government. However, the District Treasury Officer has stated that it was for the concerned Bank to revise the pension and submit the bill but the Bank from which the petitioner has been drawing the pension has not done this exercise. Hence, the delay in making the payment has been explained. In view of the statement made by the District Treasury Officer, nothing survives in the present petition and the same is disposed of as such. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) September 9, 2010. JUDGE RC