IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12326 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 17, 2009 Krishna Devi & Others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. G.S. Nahel, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to recover the amount released to the petitioners as Dearness Allowance on Family Pension in view of the fact that a person from the family had been given appointment on compassionate ground. Learned counsel states that similar issue had been raised before this Court and was CWP No.12326 of 2009 [2] adjudicated by the Division Bench while dealing with Civil Writ Petition No.891 of 2003 titled `Mukhtiar Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Others’ decided on 20.1.2004 (Annexure P-3). Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Heard. It has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the issue raised in this petition is covered by Mukhtiar Singh’s case (supra). Learned counsel has pointed out that the State of Punjab had gone up in appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The appeal has been dismissed and therefore, the judgment [Mukhtiar Singh’s case (supra)] has attained finality. I have considered the matter. Operative part of Mukhtiar Singh’s case (supra) reads as under:- “In so far as the first issue is concerned, the controversy in hand stands adjudicated upon by the Apex Court in HSEB and Ors. Vs. 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 respondent recovery of dearness allowance wrongly paid to the petitioners. It is CWP No.12326 of 2009 [3] 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 being so, in view of the decision rendered by the Apex court in Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana & 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.” In view of the fact that the issue is covered by Mukhtiar Singh’s case (supra), this petition is decided in the same terms. (AJAI LAMBA) August 17, 2009 JUDGE Avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?