IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: October 29, 2009 1. Civil Writ Petition No.16471 of 2009 Raj Rani .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . 2. Civil Writ Petition No.16477 of 2009 Shanta .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . 3. Civil Writ Petition No.16555 of 2009 Sukhwinder Kaur .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CWP No.16471 of 2009 [2] CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. O.P. Gabba, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This judgment shall dispose of three petitions viz. Civil Writ Petition No.16471 of 2009, Civil Writ Petition No.16477 of 2009 and Civil Writ Petition No.16555 of 2009 as common questions of law and facts have been raised. For reference to pleadings, Civil Writ Petition No.16471 of 2009 is being taken up. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was being paid Dearness Allowance on Family Pension after death of her husband while in service. Subsequently, even son of the petitioner was given employment on compassionate ground. Under the instructions issued by the respondents, Dearness Allowance was not to be paid on Family Pension in case a family member is given employment on compassionate ground. Under such circumstances, recovery of excess amount of Dearness Allowance is being effected. CWP No.16471 of 2009 [3] Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue raised in this petition is squarely covered by judgment dated 20.1.2004 rendered by the Division Bench while dealing with Civil Writ Petition No.891 of 2003 titled `Mukhtiar Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Others’. Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Heard. In all the three petitions, the issue raised is that the petitioners were being paid Family Pension alongwith Dearness Allowance thereon. A member of the family was given employment on compassionate ground whereupon Dearness Allowance on Family Pension was not payable. The same however was being paid. Subsequently, on coming to know of the infraction of instructions, recovery is being effected. I have considered the matter. Operative part of Mukhtiar Singh’s case (supra) reads as under:- “In so far as the first issue is concerned, the controversy in hand stands adjudicated upon by the Apex Court in HSEB and Ors. Vs. 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 CWP No.16471 of 2009 [4] contention of the petitioner is, therefore, not accepted. The second issue relates to the respondent recovery of dearness allowance wrongly paid to the petitioners. It is not a matter of dispute between the parties that the payment of dearness allowance to the petitioners 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 Vs. State of Haryana & 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.” Learned counsel for the respondents contends that on perusal of the pleadings, the issue, indeed, is covered by Mukhtiar Singh’s case (supra). Learned counsel has pointed out that the State of Punjab had gone up in appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The appeal has been dismissed and therefore, the judgment [Mukhtiar Singh’s case (supra)] has attained finality. In view of the above, the petitions are allowed in the same limited terms as decision rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.891 of 2003 titled ‘Mukhtiar Singh vs. State of Punjab & Others’ decided on 20.1.2004. (AJAI LAMBA) October 29, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? CWP No.16471 of 2009 [5]