CWP No.15860 of 2002 (O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 29.08.2008. Smt.Darshna and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.YM Bhagirath, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.GM Umar, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the controversy involved in the present petition is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court dated 20.01.2004 passed in CWP No.891 of 2003 (Mukhtiar Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others) wherein the following observations have been made:- “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. That CWP No.15860 of 2002 (O&M) -2- being so, in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Sahib Ram Vs. The State of Haryana and others, 1994 (5) SLR, 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 insofar 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.” This petition is, accordingly, disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. No costs. 29.08.2008 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO