IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 11186 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : JULY 29, 2009 ASHA RANI ....... 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 order shall dispose of two cases; namely, CWP 11186 of 2009 (Asha Rani v. The State of Punjab and others) and CWP 11214 of 2009 (Jaswanti Devi v. The State of Punjab and others) as common questions of law and facts are involved. The facts, as mentioned below, have been taken from CWP 11186 of 2009. This Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the Civil Writ Petition No. 11186 of 2009 2 nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to recover Dearness Allowance paid to the petitioner with retrospective effect, in pursuance of instructions dated 14.5.2001 (Annexure P-1), issued by the Government of Punjab, Department of Finance (Finance Pension Policy and Co- ordination Branch). It has been pleaded that husband of the petitioner was serving the respondents as a regular employee. He died on 31.8.1997 while in service. The petitioner has been getting family pension in regard to the service rendered by the husband of the petitioner. Son of the petitioner was given employment on compassionate grounds. Government of Punjab, Department of Finance, vide letter/instructions dated 14.5.2001 (Annexure P-1) directed that Dearness Allowance payable to the family pensioners was, in fact, not payable. The letter has further clarified that recovery be effected in relation to the Dearness Allowance already released with effect from 14.5.2001. Considering the instructions (Annexure P-1), recovery of the amount of Dearness Allowance, which has already been paid to the petitioner, is being effected from her family pension. It has been pleaded that the petitioner has neither misrepresented facts nor played any fraud so as to actuate payment of Dearness Allowance on the family pension. Challenge in the petition is to the recovery of the amount with retrospective effect. Reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in 891 of 2003 (Mukhtiar Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 20.1.2004, wherein this issue has been considered. Civil Writ Petition No. 11186 of 2009 3 Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Shri B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not disputed that the case of the petitioner would be covered by the Division Bench judgment rendered in Mukhtiar Singh's case (supra). Learned counsel for the respondent-State has very fairly stated that the State of Punjab had filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against the judgment in Mukhtiar Singh's case (supra). The appeal, however, has been dismissed. I have considered the issue. In Mukhtiar Singh's case (supra), the following has been held:- “The controversy in hand raises two issues namely: (1)Whether the petitioners were entitled to dearness allowance on family pension, (2)Whether recovery could be effected in a situation where the recipients had not made any misrepresentation to the authorities. In so far as the first issue is concerned, the controversy in hand stands adjudicated upon by the Apex Court in HSEB and others Versus Azad Kaur (Civil Appeal No.5035 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 Civil Writ Petition No. 11186 of 2009 4 for dearness allowance on family pension is misconceived. The first contention of the petitioners is, therefore, not accepted. 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 respondents unilaterally. Thing being so, in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Sahib Ram versus The State of Haryana and others 1994(5) S.L.R. 753, we are satisfied that the recovery should not be effected from the petitioners. In view of the above, the instant writ petitions are dismissed so far as the claim of the petitioners for dearness allowance on family pension is concerned. However the prayer of the petitioners is allowed in respect of the recovery 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.” Since the claim of the petitioners in the present cases is similar to the claim of the petitioner in Mukhtiar Singh's case (supra), Civil Writ Petition No. 11186 of 2009 5 these petitions are allowed in terms of the judgment rendered in Mukhtiar Singh's case (supra), portion where from has been extracted above. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioners is allowed in respect of recovery sought to be made from them and it is held that no recovery can be effected from the petitioner. 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 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. July 29, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?