THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.6911 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Staff Assistant in the A.P. State Cooperative Bank Limited, the 2nd respondent herein, in the year 1975. He has earned number of promotions thereafter. The 2nd respondent introduced a scheme of sanctioning advance incentive increments, to the employees, or their spouses, if they have undergone the family planning operations. The conditions, subject to which the increments are to be sanctioned, were also stipulated. On a representation submitted by the petitioner, he was extended the benefit of two advance increments, in the year 1983. After about 2½ decades, proceedings were initiated against him for recovery of the amount, on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible to be sanctioned the increments. When a notice was issued to him, the petitioner stated that he claimed the benefit being under the impression that he is eligible for it, and that if the Rules do not permit, the amount may be recovered from his salary in easy instalments. The recovery started and it was affected for about 21 months. The petitioner retired from service. Substantial part of his retirement benefits were withheld. The respondents informed the petitioner that he is liable to refund a sum of Rs.4,75,905/-, together with interest at 12%, per annum, and that as of now, a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- was recovered. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the action of the respondents in affecting recovery of the amount. He contends that the respondents calculated the amount with compound interest, that too, with quick rests and there is absolutely no justification for it. The respondents filed counter-affidavit, stating inter alia that the petitioner claimed the benefit of advance increments by suppressing facts and that he cannot dispute the quantum, at this stage. Heard Sri C.Rajashekar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.Venkat Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. On an application submitted by the petitioner for sanction of advance increments, the 2nd respondent passed an order and sanction was accorded. The petitioner reaped the benefit of advance increments for about 2½ decades. At that stage, a complaint was received to the effect that the petitioner was not eligible to be extended the benefit of advance increments. A notice was accordingly issued to the petitioner. In all fairness, he stated that he claimed the benefit under a wrong impression and that the amount can be recovered. As a matter of fact, Rs.210,000/- was recovered from him, by the time he retired from service. Now the dispute is only about the quantum to be recovered. The respondents did not place before this Court, the details of their calculations. It appears that the amount paid to the petitioner towards advance increments, was calculated with interest at frequent intervals and the figure of Rs.4,75,905/- was arrived it. It cannot be overlooked that what was paid to the petitioner is the sum representing two increments, by advancing the due date. That means, the increments, which are to be released at a later point of time, are sanctioned a bit in advance. The question as to whether how much of salary was paid to the petitioner, over and above his usual entitlement, needs to be arrived at. As regards levy of interest, it appears that the respondents charged interest on the entire amount, for the entire period, that too, with certain intervals. It is not as if the entire benefit was extended to the petitioner at once. Further, the administration is also at fault in not verifying the correct facts, at the relevant point of time. This Court is of the view that levy of interest on the amount, which is paid to the petitioner over and above his usual entitlement, at 9% per annum, for a period of 10 years would meet the ends of justice. Hence, the Writ petition is partly allowed, directing that the respondents shall be entitled to collect the amount paid to the petitioner towards two advance increments with interest at 10%, per annum, for a period of 10 years. The amount already deducted from the petitioner shall be taken into account. Within four weeks from today, the 2nd respondent shall furnish the petitioner, the details of calculations and pay the balance of terminal benefits with held, if any, to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:17.08.2011 GJ