IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17284 of 2006 Date of Decision: May 19, 2011 Kamla Devi .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. O.P. Nagpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. Challenge in this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is to orders dated 14.5.2001 (Annexure P-1) and 17.7.2006 (Annexure P-2) ordering not to grant Dearness Allowance already granted on Family Pension and to recover payment of Dearness Allowance already paid to the petitioner. 2. It has been pleaded that husband of the petitioner CWP No.17284 of 2006 [2] died in harness. Family pension was being paid. Subsequently, son of the petitioner was given employment on compassionate ground. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Dearness Allowance was not payable in view of the instructions of the respondent-State after a family member is given appointment on compassionate ground. Dearness Allowance, however, was paid to the petitioner. At this juncture, excess Dearness Allowance paid to the petitioner is sought to be recovered by virtue of impugned or- ders, Annexure P-1 and P-2, dated 14.5.2001 and 17.7.2006, respec- tively, which would not be permissible in law, in view of law settled by a Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with CWP 891 of 2003 (Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 20.1.2004. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to dispute that the issue raised in the petition would be covered by decision rendered by this Court in Mukhtiar Singh’s case (supra). 5. I have considered the issue. 6. In Mukhtiar Singh's case (supra), the following has been held by this Court:- “In so far as the first issue is concerned, the contro- versy in hand stands adjudicated upon the Apex Court in H.S.E.B. and Ors. Versus Azad Kaur (Civil Appeal No.5835 of 1998, decided on 18.8.1999). In view of the determination of the Apex Court on the issue under reference, we are satisfied that the claim of the petitioners for dearness allowance on family pension is misconceived. The first contention of the petitioner is, therefore, not ac- cepted. CWP No.17284 of 2006 [3] The second issue relates to the recovery of dearness allowance wrongfully paid to the petitioners. It is not a matter of dispute between the parties that the payment of dearness allowance to the petitioners was not based on any misrepresentation at their hands. It is clear that dearness allowance was wrongfully paid to the petitioners by the re- spondents unilaterally. That being so, in view of the deci- sion rendered by the Apex Court in Sahib Ram Versus The State of Haryana and others, 1994(5) SLR 753, we are sat- isfied that the recovery should not be effected from the pe- titioners. In view of the above, the instant writ petitions are dismissed in so far as the claim of the petitioners for dear- ness allowance on family pension is concerned, however, the prayer of the petitioners is allowed in respect of the re- covery sought to be made from them. In case any recovery has been made from the petitioners in the interregnum, the same shall be refunded to the petitioners within a period of four months from today. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.” 7. In view of the above, the petition is allowed in the same terms as in CWP 891 of 2003 (Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 20.1.2004, relevant portion whereof has been extracted above. It is directed that the respondents would have no right to effect recovery from the petitioner of the amount al- ready paid as Dearness Allowance on family pension. Consequently, the amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner by way of deduc- tion, in the interregnum period, shall be refunded by the respondents to the petitioner within four months of receipt of certified copy of this order. (AJAI LAMBA) May 19, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?