IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.1087 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : MAY 11, 2011 BALJEET KAUR &ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: None for the petitioner(s). Ms. Sonu Chahal, Addl.AG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the action of the respondents in effecting recovery on account of wrong payment made to the petitioners of Dearness Allowance, payable on family pension, in respect of services rendered by their husbands. 2. It has been pleaded that husbands of the petitioners, who were in the employment of different departments in the State of Punjab, died in harness, whereupon family pension was sanctioned. Dearness Allowance on Family Pension was being paid. Subsequently, however, a family member came to be given appointment on compassionate grounds. It seems that on account of giving of employment on compassionate grounds, Civil Writ Petition No.1087 of 2007 2 under instructions issued by the State of Punjab, Dearness Allowance is not payable on family pension. It is pleaded that despite such instructions, the Dearness Allowance on pension, continued to be paid to the petitioners. 3. It has been pleaded that, at this juncture, the Dearness Allowance paid on family pension is sought to be recovered/withdrawn by the respondents, which would not be permissible in law, in view of law settled by a Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with CWP 891 of 2003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. I have considered the issue. 5. In Mukhtiar Singh's case (supra), the following has been held by this Court:- “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 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 Civil Writ Petition No.1087 of 2007 3 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.” 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to dispute the fact that the case is covered by the judgment in Mukhtiar Singh's case (supra). It has been stated that the petitioners 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 recover 7. 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 petitioners of the amount already paid as Dearness Allowance on family pension. Consequently, the amount, if any, recovered from the petitioners by way of deduction, in the interregnum period, shall be refunded by the respondents to the petitioners within four Civil Writ Petition No.1087 of 2007 4 months of receipt of certified copy of this order. May 11, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?