IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 19531 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 31, 2009 MANJIT 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). Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of directions to the respondents not to effect recovery of Dearness Allowance already paid to the petitioner on family pension and to quash the action of the respondents in directing recovery from the petitioner of the amount already paid. It transpires that Shri Didar Singh, husband of the petitioner, was working as Sub Inspector in Punjab Armed Police. While in service, Civil Writ Petition No. 19531 of 2008 2 Shri Didar Singh died on 21.2.1996. Family pension was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. Along with the family pension, Dearness Allowance was also being paid. Jitender Singh, son of the petitioner, was given appointment of compassionate grounds on 14.11.19988. The respondents issued instructions to the effect that Dearness Allowance is not payable to pensioners who are getting family pension and a ward of the family has been given appointment of compassionate grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue would be 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. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to distinguish the judgment rendered in Mukhtiar Singh's case (supra). Learned counsel for the respondent-State states that the judgment rendered in Mukhtiar Singh's case (supra) was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The appeal, however, has been dismissed. Instructions have been issued to the effect that, in such circumstances, recovery is not to be effected of the amount already released against Dearness Allowance on family pension. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case noticed above, this petition is allowed in terms of the judgment rendered in Mukhtiar Singh's case (supra), in which 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, and 2) whether recovery Civil Writ Petition No. 19531 of 2008 3 could be effected in a situation wherein 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 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 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 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 being so, in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Sahib Ram Versus 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 in 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.” Resultantly, it is directed that the respondents would not effect recovery of the Dearness Allowance paid to the petitioner on family Civil Writ Petition No. 19531 of 2008 4 pension. If any recovery has already been effected on that count in the interregnum period, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner within three months of receipt of certified copy of the order. August 31, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?