IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16368 of 2011 Date of Decision : September 05, 2011. Devinder Kaur .....Petitioner versus The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Virinder Kumar Shukla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2. Let two copies of the writ petition be supplied to the learned State counsel during the course of day failing which the order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, neither any counter-reply from respondent Nos.1 & 2 is required nor respondent No.3 need be served at this stage. C.W.P.No .16368 of 2011 2 The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the recovery order of the dearness allowance paid to her as a part of the 'family pension'. She also seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to refund the D.A.amount already recovered from her. The petitioner's husband late Pritam Pal Singh was working as a Pump Operator in the PWD (Public Health) Department, Government of Punjab, when he unfortunately died in harness on 23.2.1999. While the petitioner has been granted family pension, her son appears to have been given employment under the ex-gratia scheme. The government policy provides that wherever the dependent of a deceased employee has been given employment under the ex-gratia scheme, the other family member receiving 'family pension' shall not be entitled to draw 'dearness allowance' on such family pension. The petitioner submits that she has no objection against the withdrawal of dearness allowance prospectively but whatever has been paid to her, be not recovered as is intended by the respondent-authorities. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the above-mentioned controversy has already been answered by a Division Bench of this Court in favour of the petitioner in Mukhtiar Singh versus State of Punjab, CWP No.891 of 2003, decided on 20.1.2004. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part in terms of the decision of this Court in Mukhtiar Singh's case (supra) with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of Mukhtiar Singh's case (supra). In case the petitioner's claim is C.W.P.No .16368 of 2011 3 found covered, the consequential benefits shall be given. However, if the respondents find that her claim is distinguishable, they shall dispose of it by passing a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Dasti. September 05, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE