IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 11818 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 6, 2009 SIMER KAUR ETC. ....... 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) Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the case of the petitioners is covered by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in CWP 891 of 2003 (Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 20.1.2004 (Annexure P-1). Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Shri B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate Civil Writ Petition No. 11818 of 2009 2 General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Heard. This Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed in challenge to the recovery being effected from the petitioners from out of the family pension, on account of alleged excess payment of Dearness Allowance paid by the respondents on family pension. It has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that the recovery has been effected without issuance of any show-cause notice and without hearing the petitioners. The action of the respondents entails civil consequences and, therefore, it was mandatory to hear the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondent-State admits that the case is covered by the ratio of the judgment rendered in Mukhtiar Singh's case (supra). Rather, the learned counsel for the respondent-State states that against the judgment in Mukhtiar Singh's case (supra), the State of Punjab had gone in appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, however, the appeal was dismissed. The following is the relevant portion in Mukhtiar Singh's case (supra):- “The controversy in hand raises two issues; namely, 1) whether the petitioners were entitled to dearness allowance on family pension, and 2) whether recovery could be effected in a situation wherein the recipients had not made any misrepresentation to the authorities. 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 Civil Writ Petition No. 11818 of 2009 3 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 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.” In view of the fact that it is the conceded position that the case of the petitioners is covered by the judgment in Mukhtiar Singh's case (supra), this petition is allowed in terms of the said judgment. Resultantly, it is held that the respondents are not entitled to effect any recovery from the petitioners. In case, any recovery has been made from the petitioners in the interregnum period, the same shall be Civil Writ Petition No. 11818 of 2009 4 refunded to the petitioners within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. August 6, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?