IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13303 of 2011 Date of Decision : July 27, 2011. Gian Devi and another .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Gopal Singh Nahel, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Ms.Charu Tuli, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, neither there is any necessity to seek counter reply from respondent Nos.1 to 3 nor any need to issue notice to respondent No.4 at this stage. The petitioners seek a mandamus to direct the respondents to fix the family pension of the petitioners after deducting the dearness allowance which is not admissible to them. They also seek a direction to the respondents not to recover the amount of the dearness allowance C.W.P.No .13303 of 2011 2 already paid to them. The husband of petitioner No.1, namely, Dharam Chand and husband of petitioner No.2, namely Sajjan Singh, while working in the respondent-department died in harness. While the petitioners have been granted family pension, their respective sons appear to have been given employment under the ex-gratia scheme. The government policy provides that wherever a dependent of the deceased employee has been given employment under the ex-gratia scheme, the other family member receiving the family pension, shall not be entitled to draw dearness allowance on such family pension. The petitioners submit that they have no objection against the withdrawal of dearness allowance prospectively but whatever has already been paid to them, may not be recovered as is intended by the respondent-authorities. The counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the above- mentioned controversy has already been answered by a Division Bench of this Court in favour of the petitioners in Mukhtiar Singh versus State of Punjab, CWP No.891 of 2003, decided on 20.1.2004. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part in terms of the decision of this Court in Mukhtiar Singh's case (supra). Dasti. July 27, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE