IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP 17763/2009 Date of Decision: 19.11.2009 Sukhjit Kaur ..........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.AK Walia,Advocate for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? JASWANT SINGH,J. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the matter is squarely covered by judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.891 of 2003 Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 20.1.2004 and a later judgment rendered in CWP 13129 of 2009 Harjit Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 26.8.2009. Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr.B.S.Chahal, Deputy Advocate General,Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondents. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to recover the Dearness Allowance paid on family pension of the petitioner. It has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that Shri Balkar CWP 17763/2009 2 Singh, husband of the petitioner was serving the respondents as Constable and was retired on medical grounds vide order dated 30.4.2000. He died on 16.8.2000. After the death of the husband of the petitioner his son Narinderpal Singh, was given appointment as Constable on compassionate grounds. Family pension was sanctioned to the petitioner and Dearness allowance was continued to be paid to her. Under the instructions issued by the respondent-State, Dearness Allowance is not payable on family pension to the surviving spouse in case a member of the family is given appointment on compassionate grounds. It is under these circumstances that recovery is being effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has not played any fraud nor has misrepresented facts to actuate payment of Dearness Allowance on family pension. Learned counsel for the respondent State admits that the matter is covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Mukhtiar Singh (supra). Learned counsel for the respondent State has pointed out that the State of Punjab had gone in appeal against the judgment in the case of Mukhtiar Singh (supra). The appeal, however, has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case noticed above, this petition is allowed in terms of and to the extent of the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.891 of 2003, Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 20.1.2004. Consequently, it is directed that amount of Dearness CWP 17763/2009 3 Allowance, if any, recovered from the petitioner shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of 4 months of receipt of certified copy of this order. 19.11.2009 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge