SAWINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the reduction of her family pension and consequently the recovery sought to be made from her. The husband of the petitioner who was in police service had died in terrorist attack. After the death of her husband on 3.2.1991, she was originally sanctioned family pension of Rs. 1,560/- but vide order Annexure P-3, her pension was reduced to Rs. 900/-. Hence, the present petition. The precise argument of learned counsel for the petitioner as regard recovery is that the same could not be made in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. v. State of Uttrakhand and Ors., 2012 4 SCT 277on the point that the excess payment of public money which is often described as "tax payer money" belongs neither to the officers who have effected over payment nor that of the recipients.

(2.) As regards the reduction learned counsel has argued that the same could not have been made without issuing notice to the petitioner.

(3.) Learned D.A.G. has defended the order passed by the respondents stating that the same was passed in accordance with law.