IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & 946 Mohinder Singh Kahlon State of Punjab CORAM: HON Present : AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. respondents not dearness allowance, which the Division Bench while admitting the petition on 21.04.2006 had stayed 20.07.2006, after hearing learned counsel for the parties. 2. and others vs. State of Haryana and others Balwinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others, which was disposed of on 18.08.2006 being covered by the judgment dated 20.01.2004 passed in 891-2003, involving the same issue claim for dearness allowance and family pension, however, prayer in IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & CHANDIGARH Mohinder Singh Kahlon Versus f Punjab and Others CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY None for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab. AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) Prayer made in the present petition is respondents not to effect recovery from the family pension on account of dearness allowance, which the Division Bench while admitting the petition on 21.04.2006 had stayed and the same was made absolute on 20.07.2006, after hearing learned counsel for the parties. Reference has been made to the judgment and others vs. State of Haryana and others Balwinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others, which was disposed of on 18.08.2006 being covered by the judgment dated 20.01.2004 passed in Mukhtiar Singh vs. State of Punjab 2003, involving the same issue, which claim for dearness allowance and family pension, however, prayer in IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-5131-2006 (O & M) Date of decision: 01.05.2025 ....Petitioner ...Respondents BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Prayer made in the present petition is for directing the to effect recovery from the family pension on account of dearness allowance, which the Division Bench while admitting the and the same was made absolute on 20.07.2006, after hearing learned counsel for the parties. eference has been made to the judgments in Budh Ram and others vs. State of Haryana and others, 2009(3) PLR 511, and Balwinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP-2691-2005 which was disposed of on 18.08.2006 being covered by the judgment Mukhtiar Singh vs. State of Punjab, CWP- , which was though dismissed qua claim for dearness allowance and family pension, however, prayer in PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.05.06 16:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CWP-5131-2006 -2- respect of recovery sought to be made was allowed by relying on the judgment in case of Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana, 1994(5) SLR 753 (SC), which fact learned State counsel despite best efforts has been unable to controvert and resist disposal of the petition in terms thereof or cite any contrary law. 3. The present petition is disposed of in terms of Mukhtiar Singh (supra). 01.05.2025 (AMAN CHAUDHARY) parveen kumar JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.05.06 16:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.