IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No. 10218 of 2009
DATE OF DECISION : OCTOBER 26, 2009
SURINDER RANI
....... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
.... RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: Mr. JS Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. RS Bhatia, Advocate, for respondent No.5.
AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)
This petition under Article 226 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 Om
Parkash, husband of the petitioner, was serving respondents No.1 and 2 as
Civil Writ Petition No. 10218 of 2009 2
Road Roller Driver. Shri Om Parkash died while in service in the year
2007. Family pension was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner.
Dearness Allowance was being paid on the family pension.
Harish Kumar, son of the petitioner, was given employment
on compassionate ground on 16.6.1988 Dearness Allowance, however,
was continued to be paid. 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 ground. 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. In these regards, learned
counsel for the petitioner relies on judgment rendered by this Court in
CWP 891 of 2003 (Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab and others) decided
on 20.1.2004.
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
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
Civil Writ Petition No. 10218 of 2009 3
judgment rendered by this Court in CWP 891 of 2003 (Mukhtiar Singh v.
State of Punjab and others) decided on 20.1.2004.
Consequently, it is directed that amount of Dearness
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.
October 26, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?