CWP No. 12855 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 12855 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: August 12, 2010 Raj Rani .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. G.P. Vashisht, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab. Mr. I.P. Singh, Advocate, for respondent no. 5. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing orders passed by the respondents by virtue of which recovery has been directed to be effected from the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the husband of the petitioner died while in service. The petitioner was getting family pension alongwith Dearness Allowance thereupon. Subsequently, one family member came to be given employment on compassionate basis whereafter, Dearness Allowance on family pension was not payable. The same, however, was continued to be paid to the petitioner. 3. At this juncture, the respondents passed orders to recover the amount already released in favour of the petitioner. CWP No. 12855 of 2010 2 4. Learned counsel contends that the issue raised in this petition is covered by judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 891 of 2003 entitled Mukhtiar Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 20.01.2004. Relevant portion from Mukhtiar Singh's case (supra) reads as under:- “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 CWP No. 12855 of 2010 3 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.” 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 5-Bank contends that the State is required to be burdened with the amount to be paid to the petitioner in terms of judgment rendered in Mukhtiar Singh's case (supra). 6. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. 7. Similar issue was raised by learned counsel for the bank in CWP No. 1961 of 2010 decided on 27.04.2010 entitled Manjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and others. Following is the adjudication on the issue in para nos. 8 and 9 of the said judgment:- “[8]. Adverting to the inter-se dispute between the State Government and the respondent Banks, an additional affidavit has been filed by the State along with some documents in order to suggest that the Bank Authorities were party to various decisions taken by the State Government from time to time and in terms of these decisions, the Banks were solely responsible to withdraw the dearness relief/allowance from the family pension after a specified period. He submits that the Bank Authorities having failed to CWP No. 12855 of 2010 4 do so, the consequences shall have to be faced by them only and not by the State Government. [9]. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I am of the considered view that this Court need not go into the aforesaid controversy in these writ proceedings except to say that the respondent – Banks shall be at liberty to seek recovery of the disputed amount from the State of Punjab, if so permissible in law and through appropriate Forum.” 8. In view of the above, this petition is decided in terms of judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 891 of 2003 entitled Mukhtiar Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 20.01.2004, portion whereof has been extracted above. 9. Bank shall be at liberty to seek recovery of the disputed amount from the State of Punjab, if so permissible in law and through appropriate Forum. 12.08.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?