Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. C. Deka, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner, who has taken voluntary retirement from service with effect from 1.10.2011 has filed this writ petition making a grievance against the deduction of Rs. 24,294/- from the retirement gratuity. The petitioner has also prayed for release of the pensionary benefits including gratuity with interest @ 18% with effect from 1.10.2011. It is the case of the petitioner that the delay in finalizing the pension case of the petitioner being not attributable to her, the respondents are liable to pay interest on delayed payment. So far as the recovery of Rs. 24,294/- from the retirement benefit is concerned, in paragraph-11 of the writ petition it has been stated that the petitioner having not committed any fraud or mis-representation, which can be said to have forced the respondents to pay the said amount to the petitioner, the respondents are not entitled to recover the said amount, more particularly when the alleged excess payment is for the period from 1991 to 1998.

2. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents on 11.09.2013, it has been stated that the recovery has been made when it was found on scrutiny of leave ledger and service book of the petitioner that there was wrong calculation in the same. Accordingly order for recovery of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 24,294/- was ordered as the petitioner was paid excess pay for 23 days.

3. By filing another affidavit today, it has further been contended that the claim of the petitioner for payment of pensionary benefits had been checked on several occasions and eventually to avoid any further complicacy, by order dated 20.9.2013, the GPF amount to the writ petitioner has been released deducting an amount of Rs. 9,409/-. Such deduction has been made on the probability of adjustment etc. It has also been stated that the amount would be refunded to the petitioner after getting required communications from the respective drawing and disbursing authority.

4. Mr. Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2000) 4 SCC 335 (Union of India Vs. R. Sarabgapani) submits that even if there was any excess drawal of salary, there being no fault on the part of the petitioner coupled with the fact that there was no mis-representation on her part, the recovery is not permissible that too after so many years and without putting the petitioner to any kind of notice. He has also referred to Rule 68 of the CCS (Pension) Rules and the guidelines framed thereunder providing for interest on delayed payment of retirement/death gratuity etc. Ms. Deka, learned State Counsel, on the other hand submits that when the calculation was made it was found that the petitioner had availed 23 days of excess leave and accordingly recovery was ordered to be made from her retirement benefits. As regards release of GPF and withholding of Rs. 9,409/- she submits that as soon as the required clarification is received, subject to the outcome thereof, the amount would be refunded to the petitioner.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also considered the entire materials on record.

6. As noted above, the petitioner took voluntary retirement from service with effect from 1.10.2011 and by now almost 2 years have gone by. It is only on 20.9.2013, the GPF amount has been released in favour of the petitioner and that too with the deduction of Rs. 9,409/- for future adjustment. So far as the recovery of Rs. 24,294/- is concerned, as stated in the writ petition, the purported excess payment relates to the year 1991-1998. There is absolutely no whisper in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that any particular conduct of the petitioner is responsible for such excess payment. No misrepresentation and/or fraud has been alleged against