CWP No.8344 of 2009 : 1 : In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 22.01.2010 Pushpa Devi Vs. State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. SS Duhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.RS Kundu, Addl. AG, Haryana. PERMOD KOHLI, , J. ( Oral) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The petitioner is a widow and was appointed on compassionate grounds and are presently posted and working in the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jind. The petitioner was getting family pension of Rs.1275/- pm when the respondent-State took a policy decision to revise the pay/pension of its employees and the family pension of the petition was raised to Rs.1953/- pm. On 27.04.2005, the respondent-State issued a clarification to the effect that the persons employed on compassionate grounds are not eligible for dearness allowance as also in revision of pension. On this basis of the clarification above, the family pension of the petitioner was reduced to Rs.1275/- pm and recovery of the amount already paid to the petitioner in the form of enhanced pension has been started from July, 2005. The petitioner made representation which has been rejected by holding that the petitioner is not entitled to dearness relief on the family pension from 1.4.2004 to 11.12.2005. It is this order which CWP No.8344 of 2009 : 2 : has been challenged in the present writ petition. The issue in controversy is no more res integra. A similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Chander Kanta and another Vs. State of Haryana and others, (CWP No.8168 of 2009) decided on 16.11.2009 wherein the following observations have been made:- “On the basis of this clarification, the family pension of the petitioner was reduced to the earlier level i.e. Rs.1275/- per month. The recovery of the amount which was paid in excess on account of enhanced family pension, was thus, ordered to be effected w.e.f. July, 2005. The petitioners represented against this and when their claim was rejected on 3.12.2008, the recoveries were effected. The grievance is that this was done without issuing any sow cause notice to them or without following the principle of natural justice. In addition, it is submitted that the petitioners have never made any misrepresentation when the family pension was revised. Accordingly, excess amount paid would not be open to be recovered in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this regard, reference is made to the case of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana, 1995 (2) RSJ, 139. This proposition of law, that any excess payment made without any misrepresentation CWP No.8344 of 2009 : 3 : would not be open to be recovered, is not in serious dispute. Accordingly, the action of the respondents in reducing the family pension of the petitioners cannot be faulted. However, at the same time, the excess amount paid to the petitioners would not be recoverable in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed to this limited extent that the excess amount paid to the petitioners wold not be recovered and if recoveries have been effected, the same shall be refunded to the petitioners.” The above observations are fully application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. If any recovery has been effected from the petitioner pursuant to the order impugned, the same shall be refunded to her. 22.01.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE