Sita Devi vs The State Of Punjab & Others on 20 February, 2009

CWP NO.4481 OF 2008                              1


    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                  CHANDIGARH.



                        DATE OF DECISION:            20.2.2009


Sita Devi                                      ...Petitioner


                       VERSUS
The State of Punjab & Others                           ...Respondents

                          CORAM

      HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI


PRESENT: Mr.M.L.Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner

            Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab

Permod Kohli, J. (Oral)

With the consent of the counsel, this petition is disposed of at

motion stage.

The husband of the petitioner, namely, Labhu Ram Sharma,

died during service and family pension was sanctioned in favour of the

petitioner under rules. The petitioner was receiving the family pension,
CWP NO.4481 OF 2008 2

including the dearness allowance. In the meanwhile, the petitioner’s son also

got job on compassionate grounds. Thereafter, the petitioner has been asked

to deposit the amount received by her as dearness allowance alongwith the

family pension and further component of dearness allowance has also been

stopped on the basis of Government Policy which inter-alia prohibits

payment of dearness allowance in the event of grant of compassionate

appointment to a family member. The petitioner has accordingly filed this

petition challenging the action of respondents. It is agreed to by the learned

counsel for the parties, that the issue involved in this petition is covered by

a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Mukhtiar Singh and others

vs. State of Punjab and others (CWP No.891 of 2003 alongwith other

connected matters) decided on 20.1.2004 wherein following observations

have been made:-

“…In view of the above, the instant writ petitions are

dismissed in so far as the claim of the petitioner for

dearness allowance on family pension is concerned.

However, the prayer of the petitioners is allowed in

respect of 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
CWP NO.4481 OF 2008 3

petitioners within a period of four months from today.

Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.”

The aforesaid observations shall apply to the case of the petitioner

also. This petition is disposed of as such.

(PERMOD KOHLI)
JUDGE

20.2.2009
MFK