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 3matter 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?