IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 15330 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : OCTOBER 27, 2009 PARKASH KAUR ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Bhavyadeep Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the matter is squarely covered by judgment rendered by this Court in CWP 891 of 2003 (Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 20.1.2004 and a later judgment rendered in CWP 13129 of 2009 (Harjit Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 26.8.2009. Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Shri B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate Civil Writ Petition No. 15330 of 2009 2 General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to recover the Dearness Allowance paid on family pension of the petitioner. It has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that Shri Bhagat Singh, husband of the petitioner, was serving the respondents as Sub Inspector and died while in service on 11.9.1977. Family pension was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. Dearness Allowance was being paid on the family pension. Surjit Singh, son of the petitioner, was given employment on compassionate ground in the year 1984. Dearness Allowance, however, was continued to be paid. Under the instructions issued by the respondent-State, Dearness Allowance is not payable on family pension to the surviving spouse in case a member of the family is given appointment on compassionate ground. It is under these circumstances that recovery is being effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has not played any fraud nor has misrepresented facts to actuate payment of Dearness Allowance on family pension. Learned counsel for the respondent-State admits that the matter is covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Mukhtiar Singh (supra). Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out that the State of Punjab had gone in appeal against the judgment in the case of Civil Writ Petition No. 15330 of 2009 3 Mukhtiar Singh (supra). The appeal, however, has been dismissed by the the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case noticed above, this petition is allowed in terms of and to the extent of the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP 891 of 2003 (Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 20.1.2004. Consequently, it is directed that amount of Dearness Allowance, if any, recovered from the petitioner shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of 4 months of receipt of certified copy of this order. October 27, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?