Allowed

Ramesh Kumari v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Apr 2013CWP/15071/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed a writ petition where the petitioner challenged the recovery of `46,390/- for dearness allowance on family pension. The court held that such recovery cannot be sustained, directing the respondents to refund the amount within two months.

What did the court decide?

Refund of `46,390/- recovered from the petitioner to be disbursed within two months.

Ramesh Kumari Vs State of Punjab… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No.15071 of 2012 Date of Decision: 25.04.2013

Ramesh Kumari

………Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab & others

¶7

………… Respondents

¶8

¶9

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

¶10

Present:Mr. Harmandeep S. Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Harsimran Singh Sethi, Addl.A.G., Punjab.

¶12

¶13

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.(ORAL)

¶14

Petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that recovery amounting to `46,390/- has been made from the petitioner for the dearness allowance which was paid to her on her family pension.

¶15

He contends that no recovery can be effected from the petitioner in the light of the Punjab Government instructions dated 28.5.2007 (Annexure P-4), where in the light of the judgment passed by this Court and as held by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5835 of 1998 titled as Haryana State Electricity Board & others Vs. Ajad Kaur” , no recovery can be effected from the persons who have been granted family pension and arrears thereon. It has further been stated in the said instructions that since no fraud or misrepresentation has been made by the persons who have been granted the dearness allowance on family pension, recovery be not effected from them. Even directions have been issued that if any recovery has been effected, the same shall be deposited in the bank

¶16

¶17

CWP No.15071 of 2012

¶18

account of the concerned person. He accordingly contends that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed with a direction to the respondents to refund the recovery effected from the petitioner.

¶19

Reply to the writ petition has been filed in Court, wherein it has been asserted that the petitioner is not entitled to the claim as has been made in the present writ petition. In support of this contention, it has been asserted that the tax payers money cannot be allowed to be retained by a person who is not entitled to the same. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5899 of 2012 titled as “Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others” .

¶20

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.

¶21

The claim as made by the petitioner in the present writ petition for refund of the amount which has been recovered from the petitioner amounting to `46,390/- being covered by the Punjab Government instructions dated 28.5.2007 wherein it has been specifically stated that the amount which has been recovered for payment of the dearness relief should be re-deposited in the account of the concerned person. The recovery as effected by the respondents cannot, thus, be sustained.

¶22

The present writ petition is allowed. Direction is issued to the respondents to refund the amount of `46,390/- recovered from the petitioner. The said amount be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶23

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE

¶24

25.04.2013 'sp'

Ramesh Kumari v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumari v. State of Punjab and 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

Khanda Singh and Anr. Vs Kamal Kumar Garg

Tejinderjit Kaur Vs Gopal Krishnan

Jasmeet Kaur and Ors. Vs Ashok Kumar Gupta and Ors.

Chetan Sharma Vs District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar and Anr.

Balwinder Kumar Ranchal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Arun Chaudhary Vs State of Punjab and Anr.