JUDGMENT Ranjan Gogoi, J.: - (Oral) - The appellant-writ petitioner is a daughter of one Baldev Singh, who died on 2.5.2002 while working in the post of Sanitary Inspector in the office of Municipal Corporation, Bathinda. Being a minor dependent of the deceased employee, the appellant-writ petitioner was granted family pension. After the appellant-petitioner attained majority, she was appointed on compassionate ground as a Clerk on 22.5.2006. However, she continued to draw family pension up to September- 2007. By order dated 30.11.2007, the respondent-Corporation stopped payment of family pension to the appellant-writ petitioner and sought to recover the amount of ‘ 1,06,891/- being the family pension amount drawn by the appellant-writ petitioner after her appointment in the Corporation. Aggrieved by the said order of stoppage of family pension and the recovery proposed, the writ petition, out of which this appeal has arisen, was filed. 2. The learned single Judge hearing the writ petition, on consideration of para 4.3 (i) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (Volume-II), took the view that under the provisions of the said rules, the appellant-writ petitioner was entitled to family pension till she had started earning her own livelihood. The learned single Judge, therefore, found no fault with the order of the respondent-Corporation stopping the payment of family pension and ordering for recovery of the overdrawn amount of ‘1,06,891/-. 3. Aggrieved, this LPA has been filed. 4. The facts of the case, as stated above, not being in dispute, we have considered the relevant provisions of the Punjab Civil Service Rules holding the field. Under the provisions of the said rules, the appellant-writ petitioner was not entitled to family pension after 22.5.2006 on which date she was appointed in the respondent-Corporation on compassionate ground. If that be so, no infirmity can be found in the action of the respondent-Corporation in stopping family pension to the appellant-writ petitioner with effect from 1.9.2007. 5. According to the respondents, the appellant-writ petitioner has drawn an amount of ‘1,06,891/- on account of family pension between 22.5.2006 to 31.8.2007. As the appellant-writ petitioner is now earning her livelihood, we 2 also find no infirmity with the order of recovery which appears to have been passed on reasonable terms i.e. @ ‘2,500/- per month. 5. According to the respondents, the appellant-writ petitioner has drawn an amount of ‘1,06,891/- on account of family pension between 22.5.2006 to 31.8.2007. As the appellant-writ petitioner is now earning her livelihood, we 2 also find no infirmity with the order of recovery which appears to have been passed on reasonable terms i.e. @ ‘2,500/- per month. An argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner that the amount of ‘ 1,06,891/- sought to be recovered from the appellant also includes pension paid to the brother of the appellant. The said fact is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation. That apart, no such case was projected before the learned single Judge, as is evident from the impugned order. We, therefore, deem it fit not to go into the said question in the present LPA. The appeal, consequently, stands dismissed in the above terms. —————————