IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 8126 of 2009 Date of Decision: 5.9.2009 Smt. Kamla Devi --Petitioner Versus Union of India and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. R.S. Panghal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Geeta Singhwal, C.G.S.C for respondents. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he has instructions to make a submission that the petitioner will not claim any pension from the Army and she will be satisfied with the pension being granted by the State of Haryana and on that basis the learned counsel makes a statement that he gives up the relief claimed in para (ii) 2 of the prayer part of writ petition. The petitioner has claimed two reliefs. One was the family pension both from the State Govt. and Govt. of India, 2nd relief has been given up. The first prayer relates to a direction to quash the recovery notice dated 29.2.2008 (Annexure P-1) whereby an amount of Rs. 3,24,782/- is sought to be recovered from the petitioner. This issue is squarely covered by a judgement of this Court reported as 2005(3) Law Herald (P&H) 105. Operative part of this judgement reads as under:- “ The writ petition is accordingly disposed of but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and in order to meet the ends of justice, it will be sufficient to state that after so many years, it will not be CWP. No. 8126 of 2009 -2- proper to impose recovery upon the petitioner specially when it was the husband of the petitioner who should have, disclosed the fact that he was drawing pension from the Army in terms of Rules 4 (iii) (1) of the Punjab Govt. National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965. It was his responsibility therefore, to have made the disclosure. This Court takes note of the fact that the petitioner's husband retired as an ordinary Havildar. Almost 58 years have gone by since the time her husband was discharged from the Army in 1947 and almost 40 years have also gone by from the date her husband superannuated from the Department of Police, Govt. of Punjab in 1965. The petitioner, therefore, is obviously an old individual and whatever pension that she may have received was not such a big amount. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of this case and taking a lenient view, it would therefore be sufficient ex debito justitiae to dispose off this writ petition with an observation that the authorities will not recover the amount that has already been paid to the petitioner.” In view of the above circumstances, this petition is allowed and the impugned order (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed. If, any amount is recovered from the petitioner, the same shall be refunded to her. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 5.9.2009 lucky