IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 15391 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : OCTOBER 7, 2009 HARBHAJAN KAUR ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. AK Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the matter is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP 891 of 2003 (Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 20.1.2004. Notice of motion. Civil Writ Petition No. 15391 of 2009 2 On the asking of the Court, Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Heard. It transpires that husband of the petitioner; namely, Shri Joginder Singh, died on 1.4.1999, while in service. Family pension was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. Dearness Allowance was being paid on the family pension. Harjit Singh, son of the petitioner, was given employment on compassionate ground in the year 2001. Dearness Allowance, however, was continued to be paid. It transpires that 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. Hence, recovery has been ordered at this juncture. 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 petitioner further contends 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 does not dispute 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 Mukhtiar Singh (supra). The appeal, however, has been dismissed by the Civil Writ Petition No. 15391 of 2009 3 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The judgment rendered by this Court in Mukhtiar Singh (supra) has been upheld. 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 7, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?