The High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that while the petitioner is not entitled to DA on family pension due to the son's employment, no recovery of previously paid DA shall be effected, directing its refund within three months.
No recovery of DA already paid; direction to refund any recovered amount within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No.15532 of 2009.doc
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.15532 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.02.2010
Janak Rani . . . . Petitioner
VS.
State of Punjab and Others . . . . . Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Suresh Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab
SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)
(1). The petitioner seeks a direction against deduction of DA from the family pension granted vide Pension Payment Order dated 09.08.1991 (Annexure P1). The respondents have filed their counter-reply, which is taken on record. As per their plea, the DA on family pension has been withdrawn on the ground that the son of the petitioner had already been employed as a Constable on compassionate grounds.
CWP No.15532 of 2009.doc
(2).
During the course of hearing it is stated by the counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in this writ petition stands answered by this Court in CWP No.891 of 2003, Mukhtiar Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and
others decided on 20.01.2004.
(3).
The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in part in terms of the decision rendered by this Court in Mukhtiar Singh’s case (supra) to the extent that while the petitioner is not entitled to DA on family pension, however, no recovery of the DA already paid shall be effected. The recovery, if any, already made shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(5). Dasti .
(SURYA KANT) JUDGE
03.02.2010
vishal shonkar
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to Dearness Allowance (DA) on family pension given the son's employment on compassionate grounds.
Whether DA already paid to the petitioner can be recovered from the petitioner.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mukhtiar Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and othersFollowed¶2528
CWP No.891 of 2003, Mukhtiar Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others
Janak Rani
State of Punjab and Others
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
