Dismissed

Balbir Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Aug 2010CWP/21581/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the petitioners' claim for Dearness Allowance on family pension. The court held that the issue had already been adjudicated by the Supreme Court in H.S.E.B. vs Azad Kaur, rendering the claim misconceived and the existing precedent on compassionate appointment grounds controlling.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed without any relief granted to the petitioners.

Balbir Kaur & Ors. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶2

CHANDIGARH.

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No.21581 of 2008

¶4

DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 2, 2010

¶5

BALBIR KAUR & ORS.

¶6

....... PETITIONER(S)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

¶9

.... RESPONDENT(S)

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

¶11

PRESENT: Mr. RS Rangpuri, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

¶12

AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)

¶13

This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant Dearness Relief/Allowance on family pension to the petitioners.

¶14

It transpires that family members of the petitioners have been given appointment on compassionate grounds and, therefore, under the instructions issued by the respondent-State, Dearness Allowance on family pension is not being given.

¶15

It has been brought out that the issue has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court while dealing with CWP 891 of 2003

¶16

Civil Writ Petition No.21581 of 2008

¶17

¶18

(Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 20.1.2004, wherein the following has been held :-

¶19

“The controversy in hand raises two issues; namely, 1) whether the petitioners were entitled to dearness allowance on family pension, and 2) whether recovery could be effected in a situation wherein the recipients had not made any misrepresentation to the authorities.

¶20

In so far as the first issue is concerned, the controversy in hand stands adjudicated upon the Apex Court in H.S.E.B. and Ors. Versus Azad Kaur (Civil Appeal No.5835 of 1998, decided on 18.8.1999). In view of the determination of the Apex Court on the issue under reference, we are satisfied that the claim of the petitioners for dearness allowance on family pension is misconceived. The first contention of the petitioner is, therefore, not accepted.”

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that, indeed, the issue raised by the petitioners in this petition would be covered by the judgment rendered in Mukhtiar Singh's case (supra) and, therefore, the petitioners would have no right to claim Dearness Allowance on family pension, in view of the fact that family members have been given appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶22

In view of what has been held in the judgment rendered in CWP 891 of 2003 (Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 20.1.2004, the petition is dismissed.

¶23

August 2, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE

¶24

To be referred to the Reporters or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Balbir Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbir Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Karnail Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Simranjit Kaur @ Santosh Rani Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Lakhwinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Karamjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Satinderjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.