IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 12152 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 12, 2009 SHIV RAJ KAPOOR ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. RK Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). 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 certiorari quashing the action of the respondents by virtue of which recovery of Dearness Allowance paid on family pension to the petitioner is being recovered without any show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing. It has been pleaded that the present case is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in CWP 891 of 2003 (Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 20.1.2004. Civil Writ Petition No. 12152 of 2009 2 Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Shri B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Heard. It has been pleaded in the petition that the petitioner is drawing family pension on account of death of his wife-Smt. Kailash Kumari, who was JBT Teacher and expired in 1992, while in service of Punjab Education Department. Son of the deceased was given employment on compassionate ground. Certain instructions came to be issued by the Finance Department, Punjab to the effect that in such cases where employment has been given to a family member on compassionate ground, Dearness Allowance is not payable on the family pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the said decision, recovery has been effected from the family pension. It has been pleaded that the present case is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Mukhtiar Singh's case (supra). Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not disputed the facts, as stated on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has further pointed out that the state of Punjab had gone up in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against the judgment in Mukhtiar Singh's case (supra) which, however, was dismissed. Considering the above, this petition is allowed in the same terms as judgment rendered in CWP 891 of 2003 (Mukhtiar Singh v. State Civil Writ Petition No. 12152 of 2009 3 of Punjab and others) decided on 20.1.2004. Resultantly, it is directed that whatever recovery has been effected from the petitioner in the interregnum period, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner within 4 months of receipt of a certified copy of this order. August 12, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?