CWP-14465-2003 (O&M) CWP-16023-2003 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 612, 625 CWP-14465-2003 Amarwati and others CWP-16023-2003 Amarjit and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present : None Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. These cases involve similar issues and therefore, are being disposed of together and for the sake of CWP-14465-200 2. Prayer made in the present petitions for not to make recovery of the amount of dearness allowance given on family pension from 14.05.2001 to 01.12.2001 including the arrear to 14.05.2001, which was stayed by the Division Bench on 11.09.2003 and continued vide order dated 17.11.2003 when the matter was admitted. 3. Reliance in the index was made to pendency of CWP titled as Gurmet Kaur and others vs. State of Punjab and others, which was disposed of by the Division Bench on 13.05.2 covered by the judgment rendered in others, CWP-2496 2003 (O&M) 2003 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 03 (O&M) Amarwati and others vs. State of Punjab and other 03 (O&M) Amarjit and others vs. State of Punjab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** None for the petitioners. Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab. ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) These cases involve similar issues and therefore, are being disposed of together and for the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from 2003. Prayer made in the present petitions for not to make recovery of the amount of dearness allowance given on family pension from 14.05.2001 to 01.12.2001 including the arrear to 14.05.2001, which was stayed by the Division Bench on 11.09.2003 and d vide order dated 17.11.2003 when the matter was admitted. Reliance in the index was made to pendency of CWP Gurmet Kaur and others vs. State of Punjab and others, which was disposed of by the Division Bench on 13.05.2 covered by the judgment rendered in Shanti Devi vs. State of Punjab and 2496-2004, decided on 13.02.2004, which 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 02.04.2025 vs. State of Punjab and others s HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY These cases involve similar issues and therefore, are being brevity, the facts are being taken from Prayer made in the present petitions for directing the respondents not to make recovery of the amount of dearness allowance given on family pension from 14.05.2001 to 01.12.2001 including the arrear w.e.f. 18.07.1997 to 14.05.2001, which was stayed by the Division Bench on 11.09.2003 and d vide order dated 17.11.2003 when the matter was admitted. Reliance in the index was made to pendency of CWP-12685-2003 Gurmet Kaur and others vs. State of Punjab and others, as similar which was disposed of by the Division Bench on 13.05.2004 being squarely Shanti Devi vs. State of Punjab and .2004, which the Division Bench These cases involve similar issues and therefore, are being brevity, the facts are being taken from directing the respondents not to make recovery of the amount of dearness allowance given on family w.e.f. 18.07.1997 to 14.05.2001, which was stayed by the Division Bench on 11.09.2003 and 2003 as similar 004 being squarely Shanti Devi vs. State of Punjab and the Division Bench ASHOK KUMAR 2025.04.03 12:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-14465-2003 (O&M) CWP-16023-2003 (O&M) allowed as such: “The petitioner’s husband died in harness. After the death of her husband, the petitioner was granted family pension. Besides granting family pension to the petitioner, her son was granted employment on compassionate grounds. Despite the fact that the petit employment, the petitioner continued to draw family pension along the petitioner could not have been paid the dearness allowance in addition to the famil employment on compassionate grounds, have sought to recover the same through the impugned order dated 03.02.2004 (Annexure P7). Learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the action of the authorities in was not entitled to dearness allowance on family pension after the employment of her son on compassionate grounds. The petitioner, however, wishes to limit her claim so as to challenge the recovery of dearness through Notice of motion. On our asking accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the controversy in ha We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the issue of recovery is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in ASI No.15762 of 2003, decided on 05.12.2003), specially on account of the fact that the payment of dearness allowance on family pension was not released to the petitioner on account of any misrepresentation at t In view of the above, the instant writ petition is allowed to the limited extent that the action of the respondents in effecting recovery from the petitioner is set aside. The recovery, if any already made shall be refunded to month from today. Allowed in the aforesaid terms.” 4. Learned State counsel, despite best efforts, has not been able to controvert as regards the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned 5. In view of the above, the present petition 2003 (O&M) 2003 (O&M) allowed as such:- The petitioner’s husband died in harness. After the death of her husband, the petitioner was granted family pension. Besides granting family pension to the petitioner, her son was granted employment on compassionate grounds. Despite the fact that the petitioner’s son was accommodated in Government employment, the petitioner continued to draw family pension along with dearness allowance. The authorities, on realizing that the petitioner could not have been paid the dearness allowance in addition to the family pension after her son had been given employment on compassionate grounds, have sought to recover the same through the impugned order dated 03.02.2004 (Annexure P7). Learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the action of the authorities in arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to dearness allowance on family pension after the employment of her son on compassionate grounds. The petitioner, however, wishes to limit her claim so as to challenge the recovery of dearness allowance through the impugned order. Notice of motion. On our asking Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Additional AG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the controversy in hand is purely legal in nature and can be disposed of today itself. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the issue of recovery is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in ASI Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab and others (CWP No.15762 of 2003, decided on 05.12.2003), specially on account of the fact that the payment of dearness allowance on family pension was not released to the petitioner on account of any misrepresentation at the hands of the petitioner. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is allowed to the limited extent that the action of the respondents in effecting recovery from the petitioner is set aside. The recovery, if any already made shall be refunded to month from today. Allowed in the aforesaid terms.” earned State counsel, despite best efforts, has not been able to controvert as regards the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned decision or cite any contrary. In view of the above, the present petition 2 The petitioner’s husband died in harness. After the death of her husband, the petitioner was granted family pension. Besides granting family pension to the petitioner, her son was granted employment on compassionate grounds. Despite the fact that the ioner’s son was accommodated in Government employment, the petitioner continued to draw family pension h dearness allowance. The authorities, on realizing that the petitioner could not have been paid the dearness allowance y pension after her son had been given employment on compassionate grounds, have sought to recover the same through the impugned order dated 03.02.2004 Learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the action arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to dearness allowance on family pension after the employment of her son on compassionate grounds. The petitioner, however, wishes to limit her claim so as to challenge allowance wrongfully paid to her r. Ashok Aggarwal, Additional AG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the controversy in nd is purely legal in nature and can be disposed of today itself. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the issue of recovery is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab and others (CWP No.15762 of 2003, decided on 05.12.2003), specially on account of the fact that the payment of dearness allowance on family pension was not released to the petitioner on account of any he hands of the petitioner. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is allowed to the limited extent that the action of the respondents in effecting recovery from the petitioner is set aside. The recovery, if any already made shall be refunded to the petitioner within one Allowed in the aforesaid terms.” earned State counsel, despite best efforts, has not been able to controvert as regards the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in . In view of the above, the present petitions are also disposed of in The petitioner’s husband died in harness. After the death of her husband, the petitioner was granted family pension. Besides granting family pension to the petitioner, her son was granted employment on compassionate grounds. Despite the fact that the ioner’s son was accommodated in Government employment, the petitioner continued to draw family pension h dearness allowance. The authorities, on realizing that the petitioner could not have been paid the dearness allowance y pension after her son had been given employment on compassionate grounds, have sought to recover the same through the impugned order dated 03.02.2004 Learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the action arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to dearness allowance on family pension after the employment of her son on compassionate grounds. The petitioner, however, wishes to limit her claim so as to challenge wrongfully paid to her r. Ashok Aggarwal, Additional AG, Punjab, Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the controversy in nd is purely legal in nature and can be disposed of today itself. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the issue of recovery is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab and others (CWP No.15762 of 2003, decided on 05.12.2003), specially on account of the fact that the payment of dearness allowance on family pension was not released to the petitioner on account of any In view of the above, the instant writ petition is allowed to the limited extent that the action of the respondents in effecting recovery from the petitioner is set aside. The recovery, if any within one earned State counsel, despite best efforts, has not been able to controvert as regards the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in also disposed of in ASHOK KUMAR 2025.04.03 12:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-14465-2003 (O&M) CWP-16023-2003 (O&M) terms of Shanti Devi 6. Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected file. 02.04.2025 ashok Whether speaking Whether reportable 2003 (O&M) 2003 (O&M) Shanti Devi (supra). Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected file. Whether speaking : Whether reportable : 3 Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected file. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No ASHOK KUMAR 2025.04.03 12:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document