CWP No. 1961 of 2010. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 1961 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 27th April, 2010. Manjit Kaur Petitioner through Mr. A.K.Walia, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab. Mr. K.S.Rikhi and Mr. Satish Jaswal, Advocate, for respondent No.4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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] This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 739, 1961, 4191. 4479, 4763, 4946 of 2010, 7291, 16079, 17922, 17929 of 2009 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 1961 of 2010. [2]. The petitioner is widow of late Sohan Singh, who was working as Beldar under the Executive Engineer, Sidhwan Canal Division, Ludhaina. Said Sohan Singh passed away on 28.8.2002 while in service. The petitioner was sanctioned 'family pension' as per the Rules which was ordered to be paid through the Bank of India – respondent No. 4. Subsequently, son of the petitioner, namely, Rajinder Singh was also given appointment on compassionate grounds under the ex-gratia scheme of the State. [3]. It is an admitted fact that in terms of the Government Instructions dated 14.02.2003 [Annexure R-1] all those family CWP No. 1961 of 2010. ::-2-:: pensioners who have got employment on compassionate grounds in view of the death of the employee in whose respect the family pension is sanctioned, are not entitled to the dearness relief on family pension after getting appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner was also not entitled to dearness relief on the family pension from the date her son - Rajinder Singh got employment on compassionate grounds. However, the respondent Bank continued to pay family pension along with dearness component to the petitioner till the mistake was detected and furhter payment of dearness relief was stopped vide the impugned order dated 9.9.2009 [Annexure P-2] whereby excess amount of dearness relief already paid to the petitioner w.e.f. the date of appointment of her son on compassionate grounds, i.e., 12.5.2003, to the tune of Rs. 86680/- was also sought to be recovered. [4]. Learned counsel for the petitioner though fairly submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of dearness allowance from the date of appointment of her son on compassionate grounds, he, however, urges that since the petitioner never misrepresented the facts nor played any fraud or deceived the authorities to continue to draw the benefit of dearness allowance on family pension, no recovery can be effected from her, as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Mukhtiar Singh v State of Punjab, CWP No. 891 of 2003, decided on 20.02.2004, which has been re-affirmed by a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram v State of Haryana & Ors. 2009 [3] PLR, 511. [5]. The above cited legal position though is not disputed by learned State Counsel or the counsel representing the Banks CWP No. 1961 of 2010. ::-3-:: nevertheless, it is urged on behalf of the Banks that in some of the cases, recoveries, though partly, have been effected and the recovered amount has been deposited with the State Government. The refund of such amounts, if any, has to be made by the State Government. It is also contended that the excess amounts paid to the family pensioners are recoverable from the State Government only and not from the Banks. [6]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the records. [7]. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in Budh Ram's case [supra], there is indeed no doubt that no recovery can be effected from the petitioners even if they have consented in writing in this regard. The impugned recovery orders are accordingly quashed. The amount recovered from the petitioners shall be refunded to them within a period of three months from today. [8]. Adverting to the inter-se dispute between the State Government and the respondent Banks, an additional affidavit has been filed by the State along with some documents in order to suggest that the Bank Authorities were party to various decisions taken by the State Government from time to time and in terms of these decisions, the Banks were solely responsible to withdraw the dearness relief/allowance from the family pension after a specified period. He submits that the Bank Authorities having failed to do so, the consequences shall have to be faced by them only and not by the State Government. [9]. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I am of the considered view that this Court need not go into the afore- CWP No. 1961 of 2010. ::-4-:: said controversy in these writ proceedings except to say that the respondent - Banks shall be at liberty to seek recovery of the disputed amount from the State of Punjab, if so permissible in law and through an appropriate forum. [10]. Disposed of. Dasti. April 27, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE