HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.4405 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.09.2011 **** Paramjit Kaur . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab **** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). The respondents continued to pay ‘family pension’ to the petitioner at higher rate even though, it seems that under the Rules it was required to be reduced after expiry of seven years. The excess amount has been suddenly recovered from the family pension of the petitioner. (2). Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has never misled the authorities or played any fraud or deceived them to secure the undeserving monetary benefit(s). (3). Applying the ratio decidendi of the Full Bench decision in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2009(3) PLR 511 as well as the decision by the Hon’ble CWP No.4405 of 2011.doc - 2 – Supreme Court in Registrar, Cooperative Societies Haryana and others v. Israil Khan and others, (2010) 1 SCC 440, I am of the considered view that no recovery can be effected from the petitioner. (4). Consequently, the writ petition is allowed in part and the action of the respondents in effecting recovery from the family pension of the petitioner is set at naught. The respondents are directed to refund the amount if any already recovered from the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (5). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 09.09.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge