AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard Shri H.M. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Srivastava for the respondents.
The petitioner retired on 30.4.2006. The petitioner had been given an office advance in the year 2003 to the extent of Rs. 1,40,000/. The said advance had to be adjusted from the G.P.F. amount payable to the petitioner which was paid over to him with interest.
The impugned order dated 23.1.2010 seeks to recover the said amount which has been wrongly paid to the petitioner.
Sri Srivastava contends that there is no mistake on the part of the petitioner and the impugned order itself indicates that it was on account of the mistake by the department that the payment has been made. He relies on 2 decisions namely Union of India and others Vs. Sujatha Vedachalam (Smt.) and another, (2000) 9 SCC 187, and Krishna Swaroop Srivastava Vs. Director of Panchayatraj, U.P., Lucknow and others, (2001) 3 UPLBEC 1985, to contend that in absence of any mistake on the part of the petitioner, the recovery along with interest could not have been made.
Sri Srivastava has invited the attention of the Court to the impugned order to contend that so far as the amount of Rs.1,40,000/ is concerned, the petitioner does not dispute the said amount having been taken as advance and, therefore, the same has to be returned back by the petitioner. He, however, contends that since there is no mistake on the part of the petitioner, therefore, the realisation of interest on the said amount is unjustified.
Having considered the aforesaid submissions, it is evident that the petitioner had been paid the G.P.F. amount including the aforesaid amount which was recoverable from the petitioner together with interest. It is, therefore, sought to be recovered with the interest which was paid to the petitioner. In my opinion, the mistake is being corrected and it is perfectly in accordance with law inasmuch as the interest had been paid to the petitioner and the same will have to be recovered from him. The decisions which have been relied upon by the petitioner do not have even remote application on the facts and circumstances of the present case.
The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.