IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7819 of 2011 Date of Decision : July 04, 2011. Paramjit Kaur .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.R.K.Arya, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab. Mr.Atul Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.5. -.- 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 4 and Mr.Atul Mahajan, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.5. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the order for recovery of the dearness allowance paid to her as a part of the family pension. She also seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to refund the D.A.amount already recovered from her. C.W.P.No .7819 of 2011 2 The petitioner's husband namely late Sh.Baldev Singh Atwal was working as a Teacher in the Education Department, Government of Punjab, when he unfortunately died in harness on 21.1.1996. While the petitioner has been granted family pension, her son appears 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 petitioner submits that she has no objection against the withdrawal of dearness allowance prospectively but whatever has already been paid to her, 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 petitioner 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 04, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE