IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 14937 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 24, 2009 GURMEET KAUR ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for directing the respondents not to recover the Dearness Allowance paid on family pension of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the matter is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP 891 of 2003 (Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 20.1.2004. Notice of motion. Civil Writ Petition No. 14937 of 2009 2 On the asking of the Court, Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Heard. From the pleadings, it has been pointed out that Shri Mangta Singh, husband of the petitioner, was serving the respondents as Patwari and expired on 18.2.2003, while in service. Family pension was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. Dearness Allowance was being paid on the family pension. Shri Mandeep Singh, son of the petitioner, was given employment on compassionate ground on 3.7.2007. Dearness Allowance, however, was continued to be paid. Under the instructions issued by the respondent-State, Dearness Allowance is not payable on family pension to the surviving spouse in case a member of the family is given appointment on compassionate ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has not played any fraud nor has misrepresented facts to actuate payment of Dearness Allowance on family pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the matter is covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Mukhtiar Singh (supra), relevant portion whereof reads as under:- “The controversy in hand raises two issues; namely, 1) whether the petitioners were entitled to dearness allowance on family pension, and 2) whether recovery could be effected in a situation wherein the recipients had not made any misrepresentation to the authorities. In so far as the first issue is concerned, the controversy in hand stands adjudicated upon the Apex Civil Writ Petition No. 14937 of 2009 3 Court in H.S.E.B. and Ors. Versus 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 recovery of dearness allowance wrongfully paid to the petitioners. It is not a matter of dispute between the parties that the payment of dearness allowance to the petitioners was 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 Versus The State of Haryana and 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. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.” Learned counsel for the respondent-State admits that the matter is covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Mukhtiar Singh (supra). Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out that the State of Punjab had gone in appeal against the judgment in the case of Civil Writ Petition No. 14937 of 2009 4 Mukhtiar Singh (supra). The appeal, however, has been dismissed by the the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case noticed above, this petition is allowed in terms of and to the extent of the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP 891 of 2003 (Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 20.1.2004, portion whereof has been extracted above. Consequently, it is directed that amount of Dearness Allowance, if any, recovered from the petitioner shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of 4 months of receipt of certified copy of this order. September 24, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?