IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 12102 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 12, 2009 JASVIR KAUR ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. OP Gabba, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 29.5.2009 (Annexure P-4), passed by respondent No.4 i.e. State Bank of India, whereby recovery is being effected from the petitioner out of her family pension. Further prayer made in the petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the recoveries effected from the petitioner in the interregnum. It has been pleaded that husband of the petitioner; namely, Civil Writ Petition No. 12102 of 2009 2 Sukhchain Singh, was an employee of State of Punjab, working as Head Constable in the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur. Sukhchain Singh died on 19.10.1997 while still in service. The petitioner, being the widow, is getting family pension in regard to the service rendered by her husband, since 19.10.1997. The family pension is being received from State Bank of India, Mudki, District Ferozepur. Son of the petitioner was given employment on compassionate grounds in Punjab Armed Police as Constable and has been working in that capacity since February, 2004. Government of Punjab, Department of Finance, vide order dated 14.5.2001 directed that Dearness Allowance being paid to the family pensioners was not payable in view of the fact that a member of the family was given appointment on compassionate grounds. Consequently, recovery is being effected from the family pension of the petitioner, which action is under challenge in this petition. It has been pleaded that the present case is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in CWP 891 of 2003 (Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 20.1.2004. Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Shri B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Heard. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not disputed the facts, as stated on behalf of the petitioner. Civil Writ Petition No. 12102 of 2009 3 Learned counsel for the respondent-State has further pointed out that the State of Punjab had gone up in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against the judgment in Mukhtiar Singh's case (supra) which, however, was dismissed. Considering the above, this petition is allowed in the same same terms as judgment rendered in CWP 891 of 2003 (Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 20.1.2004. Resultantly, it is directed that, in case, any recovery has been made from the petitioner in the interregnum period, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner within 4 months of receipt of a certified copy of this order. August 12, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?