IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 19472 of 2007 Date of Decision: August 25,2008 Mohinder Kaur .................................................... Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others ............................. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr. R.K.Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. A.K.Khunger, Advocate for respondent No. 4. .... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in effecting recovery from the family pension of the petitioner on account of alleged excess/wrong payment of family pension. The son of the petitioner Shri Puran Singh was working as Beldar in the Canal Division, Abohar, District Ferozepur. He expired on 6.3.2001. After his death, his parents were sanctioned family pension of Rs.2196/- per month with effect from 7.3.2001 vide PPO No. 44643/S/PB. Subsequently, the family pension was reduced from Rs.2196/- to Rs.1464/- with retrospective effect from 7.3.2001 and recovery of the alleged over- payment i.e. Rs.40,855/- was sought to be effected from the family pension given to the petitioner. Shri Gurmukh Singh, husband of the petitioner, expired on 7.2.2007 and after his death the petitioner was allowed [ 2 ] C.W.P. No. 19472 of 2007 family pension of Rs.1310/- per month with effect from 7.2.2007 against the same PPO number. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not dispute the right of the respondents to reduce the family pension admissible to the petitioner. He, however, prays that no recovery be effected from the petitioner as there was no misrepresentation on part of the petitioner or her late husband. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that henceforth the petitioner would be paid family pension as per the revised rates. However, as far as the recovery from the petitioner is concerned, it is clear that there was no misrepresentation on part of the petitioner, hence, the order vide which recovery is sought to be effected is quashed and the pension payment order vide which recovery of the excess payment of family pension is made to the petitioner is quashed. The amount which has already been recovered from the petitioner shall be refunded back to the petitioner within six months from today. Writ petition disposed of accordingly. ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) JUDGE ( RAJAN GUPTA ) JUDGE 25.8.2008 rupi