1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.800/2007 APPELLANTS:- 1. UOI 2. The Chief of the Air Staff, New Delhi. 3. The Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), UP. 4.Dy. Controller of Defence Accounts (AF), New Delhi. VERSUS RESPONDNETS:- 1. Shyam Manohar Sharma 2. Treasury Officer (R), Jodhpur 3. The Manager, S.B.I., AF Branch, Jodhpur. Date : 02.11.2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BALIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN Mr. Vivek Shrimali for the appellants. Mr. S.K. Nanda for the respondents. ______ BY THE COURT:- Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that no interference is called for in this appeal in the order passed by learned Single Judge. From the perusal of the judgment under appeal, it transpires that the petitioner has been informed that Rs.1,38,353/- are outstanding against him which he is required to refund to the Government after he has been 2 reemployed since his retirement on 31st January, 1986 and his fixation on the reemployment has been made. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the Court was informed that the recoveries have been waived and, therefore, relief against the demand for recovering the amount has became infructuous. The other part of the relief as claimed by the petitioner was that he has been informed by the appellant time and again at the time of settlement of account on cessation of his re-employment that 10% of his emoluments Rs.13,835/- are withheld for future adjustment, if any. However, that amount has not been refunded to the petitioner nor any notice whatever for adjusting the amount outstanding against him were ever given to him. In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition to this extent that the present appellants were directed to refund the amount withheld by them. The facts speak for themselves that no interference is called for in the directions to release the amount withheld by the appellant without determining any amount which is recoverable from the respondent after notice 3 to him. The petitioner was entitled to refund of the amount when he finally left the job on 6.1.1990 after completing the term of reemployment. We see no reason for permitting the appellants to withhold that amount indefinitely particularly when recoveries allegedly found against him were waived. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed. The amount may be refunded within a period of two months. [ BHANWAROO KHAN ], J. [ RAJESH BALIA ], J. babulal/