IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14176 of 2010 Date of Decision: August 26, 2010 Amarjit Kaur .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Suresh Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Puri, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. Mr. Amit Rishi, Advocate, for respondent No.3. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certio- rari quashing the action of the respondents in effecting recovery on account of wrong payment made to the petitioner of Dearness Allow- ance, payable on family pension. 2. It has been contended that an employee of the re- spondent-State died in harness, whereupon family pension was sanc- tioned. Dearness Allowance on Family Pension was being paid. Subse- quently, however, a family member came to be given appointment on CWP No.14176 of 2010 [2] compassionate grounds. It seems that on account of giving of employ- ment on compassionate grounds, under instructions issued by the State of Punjab, Dearness Allowance is not payable on family pension. It is con- tended that despite such instructions, the Dearness Allowance on pen- sion, continued to be paid to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that, at this juncture, the Dearness Allowance paid on family pension is sought to be recovered/withdrawn by the respondents, which would not be permissible in law, in view of law settled by a Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with CWP 891 of 2003 (Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 20.1.2004. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that, indeed, the issue is covered by the judgment in Mukhtiar Singh's case (supra). It has been stated that the petitioner would be entitled to a limited relief. For prospective purposes, Dearness Allowance on family pension would not be payable. The respondents, however, cannot effect any recovery. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank contends that recovery has been effected by the Bank on behalf of the respondent- State and the money has been transmitted to the State. In such circum- stances, a direction be issued only to the respondent-State to refund the amount. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that instructions were issued to the Bank that on appointment of a mem- ber of the family on compassionate grounds, Dearness Allowance on CWP No.14176 of 2010 [3] family pension be not released. The instructions, however, have not been followed and, therefore, at this stage, no such direction can be issued. 7. I have considered the issue. 8. In Mukhtiar Singh's case (supra), the following has been held by this Court:- “In so far as the first issue is concerned, the contro- versy 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 ac- cepted. 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 not based on any misrepresentation at their hands. It is clear that dearness allowance was wrongfully paid to the petitioners by the re- spondents unilaterally. That being so, in view of the deci- sion rendered by the Apex Court in Sahib Ram Versus The State of Haryana and others, 1994(5) SLR 753, we are sat- isfied that the recovery should not be effected from the pe- titioners. In view of the above, the instant writ petitions are dismissed in so far as the claim of the petitioners for dear- ness allowance on family pension is concerned, however, the prayer of the petitioners is allowed in respect of the re- covery 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.” 9. In regard to the dispute raised between the respon- dent-State and the respondent-Bank, in my considered opinion, grant of relief to the petitioner cannot be delayed. It is for the respondents to re- solve their inter-se disputes. The respondent-Bank would have a right to raise the issue with the respondent-State in regard to the liability while CWP No.14176 of 2010 [4] taking course of action, as permissible in law. The petitioner, being enti- tled to the relief claimed, the same cannot be delayed in view of the dis- pute between the respondents, as noticed above. 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in the same terms as in Mukhtiar Singh's case (supra), relevant portion whereof has been extracted above. It is directed that the respondents would have no right to effect recovery from the petitioner of the amount already paid as Dearness Allowance on family pension. Consequently, the amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner by way of deduction, in the interreg- num period, shall be refunded by the respondents to the petitioner within four months of receipt of certified copy of this order. (AJAI LAMBA) August 26, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?