IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 215 (5 cases) CWP-2980- Joginder Kaur CWP-8672- Surinder Kaur and others vs. CWP-14094 Preeto Devi and another vs. CWP-10074 Parveen Sharma CWP-14987 Ram Pal CORAM: HON Present : AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. disposed of together and for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-2980- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 215 (5 cases) -2006 Joginder Kaur vs. State of Punjab -2006 Surinder Kaur and others vs. State of Punjab 14094-2005 Preeto Devi and another vs. State of Punjab 10074-2007 Parveen Sharma vs. State of Punjab 14987-2006 vs. State Bank of India and others CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP-8672-2006 None for the petitioners in remaining cases. Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Shreesh Kakkar, Advocate, for respondent No.1 in CWP-14987 Mr. Sushil K. Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. C.S.Pasricha, Advocate, for the respondent in CWP-8672 Mr. Sanjeev Roy, Advocate, for respondent-SBI in CWP-2980 CWP-8672-2006, CWP-14094 CWP-10074-2007. 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 taken from -2006. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 07.07.2025 f Punjab and Others f Punjab and Others f Punjab and Others f Punjab and Others vs. State Bank of India and others JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Advocate for 2006 and CWP-14094-2005. None for the petitioners in remaining cases. Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab. Advocate, 14987-2006. Mr. Sushil K. Bhardwaj, Advocate for 8672-2006 and 2980-2006. 2980-2006, 14094-2005 and These cases involve similar issues and therefore, are being disposed of together and for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.07.08 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CWP-2980-2006 and connected cases -2- 2. Prayer made is for directing the respondents not to make any recovery from the amount of dearness allowance given on family pension w.e.f. 14.05.2001 to 04.04.2005. 3. In the index of the petition, reliance was placed on CWP- 12235-2005, titled as Baljit Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others, which during pendency of the instant case, came to be dismissed by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 11.09.2006, to which no challenge was made. 4. Learned State counsel refers to the averments made in para 7 of the reply of respondents No.1 and 2 in CWP-14094-2005, to state that the petitioners had given undertaking by way of affidavits that in case, there is any excess amount paid, the same could be recovered. 5. In view of the above, the present petitions are dismissed. 6. Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected files. 07.07.2025 (AMAN CHAUDHARY) parveen kumar JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.07.08 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.