GURMAIL KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the prayer made by the petitioner is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to recover the benefit of dearness allowance granted on the family pension released to her. Brief facts of the case are that husband of the petitioner was working as Junior Basic Teacher in the Department of Education, Punjab and he died while on duty. After the death of her husband, the petitioner was granted family pension by the respondent- State and dearness allowance was also granted with the family pension which was continuously paid by the State Government. However, instructions dated 9.5.2002 were issued by the State Government stipulating that dearness allowance was not payable on family pension in case where employment had been granted to a dependent family member of the deceased employee who had died in harness. It further provided that a family member of the deceased had been granted employment on compassionate grounds and therefore it has been claimed that the petitioner was mistakenly paid dearness allowance on the family pension. On realising the mistake, the authorities stopped the payment of dearness allowance on family pension and started to effect recovery of the dearness allowance already paid.

(2.) The petitioner is not entitled to claim dearness allowance on family pension as the controversy stands settled in view of the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of H.S.E.B. and others v. Azad Kaur (C.A.No.5835 of 1998 decided on 18.8.1999). However, the prayer made by the petitioner that recovery be not effected is meritorious and deserves to be accepted. In similar circumstances this Court in the case of Mukhtiar Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others ( CWP No.891 of 2003) decided on 20.1.2004 has granted the prayer against recovery of dearness allowance already paid. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed to the extent that no recovery could be made from the petitioner as per the view taken by the Division Bench in Mukhtiar Singh's case . Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of in terms of the decision rendered in Mukhtiar Singh's case . Order accordingly.