CWP No.20913 of 2008 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision:22.04.2009 Dalbir Kaur and others ... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.RK Arora, Advocate,for the petitioners. Mr.BS Chahal, D.A.G., Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr.Rakesh Gupta,Advocate,for respondent No.5. Mr.HR Bansal, Advocate,for respondent No.6. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): Written statement on behalf of respondent No.5 has been filed today in Court. The same is taken on record. Copy given to the counsel opposite. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. In view of the short controversy involved and the matter being covered, this petition is disposed of at motion stage. The husband of the petitioners, died during service on the date mentioned against their names in paragraph 2 of the writ petition and family pension was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners under rules. The petitioner were receiving the family pension, including the dearness allowance. In the meanwhile, one dependent of the family members of the petitioners also got job on compassionate grounds. Under the government policy, the dearness allowance is not payable where a member of the CWP No.20913 of 2008 -2- family of the deceased-employee is granted compassionate appointment. On that basis, the respondents not only stopped the payment of dearness allowance, but also ordered recovery of dearness allowance already paid to the petitioners. The petitioner have accordingly filed this petition. It is agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, that the issue involved in this petition is covered by a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Mukhtiar Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others (CWP No.891 of 2003 alongwith other connected matters) decided on 20.1.2004 wherein following observations have been made:- “...In view of the above, the instant writ petitions are dismissed in so far as the claim of the petitioner for dearness allowance on family pension is concerned. However, the prayer of the petitioners is allowed in respect of 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.” The aforesaid observations shall apply to the case of the petitioners also. This petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. 22.04.2009 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE