IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 9599 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 2, 2009 SANTOSH KUMARI ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Gurbachan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. YK Sharma, DAG, Punjab. Mr. HR Bansal, Advocate, for respondent No.3. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to recover/deduct the amount from the pension of the petitioner and also to refund the amount deducted from the petitioner, with interest. It has been pleaded that Des Ram, husband of the petitioner, joined as Class-IV employee on 1.10.1957 in the Education Department. Civil Writ Petition No. 9599 of 2009 2 Des Ram died in harness on 21.5.1995. The petitioner was awarded family pension. Subsequently, however, the respondents started deducting amount from the pension without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. Neither reasons were given nor show cause notice was given. The petitioner sent a legal notice, through counsel, however, no response thereto has been received by the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Bank states that after the death of Des Ram, Dearness Allowance was paid on the family pension to the petitioner. Son of the petitioner was given appointment on compassionate grounds. Under such circumstances, in view of the decision taken by the respondent-State, Dearness Allowance is not payable to the surviving spouse. Be that as it may, detailed reasons would be conveyed to the petitioner. I have considered the issue. This Court, while dealing with CWP 891 of 2003 (Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 20.1.2004, has held in the following terms:- “In so far as the first issue is concerned, the controversy 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 accepted. The second issue relates to the recovery of dearness allowance wrongfully paid to the petitioners. It is not a Civil Writ Petition No. 9599 of 2009 3 matter of dispute between the parties that the payment of dearness allowance to the petitioners was was not based on any misrepresentation at their hands. It is clear that dearness allowance was wrongfully paid to the petitioners by the respondents unilaterally. That being so, in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Sahib Ram Versus The State of Haryana and others, 1994(5) SLR 753, we are satisfied that the recovery should not be effected from the petitioners. In view of the above, the instant writ petitions are dismissed in so far as the claim of the petitioners for dearness allowance on family pension is concerned, however, the prayer of the petitioners is allowed in respect of the 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.” Resultantly, 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 recovered from the petitioner by way of deduction, in the interregnum period, shall be refunded to the petitioner within four months of receipt of certified copy of this order. The writ petition stands accordingly disposed of. September 2, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?