THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.25052 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is employed in the A.P.Central Power Distrib Company Limited, the third respondent herein. He retired as an U Divisional Clerk in February, 2008. While he was in service, he was p sum of Rs.1,65,000/- in the year 2006 towards partial withdraw Provident Fund. However, at the time of his retirement, the entire Prov Fund of Rs.3,05,013/- was paid, without deducting Rs.1,65,000/-. Whe petitioner was informed that excess amount was paid, he issued a ch for Rs.1,65,000/- and the same was encashed by the respondents. A s Rs.22,733/- was deducted by the respondents from the peti representing the interest payable on Rs.1,65,000/-. A detailed orde passed on 13.07.2010 in respect thereof. The petitioner challenge same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Sta Counsel for the respondents. It is stated that there are two individuals with the same name Basheeruddin. While the petitioner was working as an UDC, Basheeruddin was working as a Record Assistant. The Record Ass appears to have made an application for withdrawal of Provident amount to the extent of Rs.1,65,000/-. That application was allowed instead of paying that amount to the Record Assistant, it was paid t petitioner in the year 2006, while he was in service. Obviously withdrawal was not entered in the service register of the petitioner. entire amount of Provident Fund available to his credit i.e., Rs.3,05 was paid to him. The petitioner states that he himself was surprised ab and offered to refund the same. Ultimately, it was only after about one that the amount of Rs.1,65,000/- was recovered from the petitioner. It is no doubt true that the petitioner had the advantage of the amount for a period of one year and in the ordinary course of thing exception can be take to the action of the respondents in recovering in of Rs.22,773/-. The record, however, discloses that neither the peti has misrepresented any facts before the respondents nor did respondents pass any written order requiring the petitioner to rem amount. The averment of the petitioner that he issued an undated ch immediately after he was paid the amount remains unrebutted. This Co of the view that a sum of Rs.10,000/- can be deducted from the petition his having benefit of retaining a sum of Rs.165,000/- for a period of one The writ petition partly allowed directing the respondents to refu sum of Rs.12,733/- against Rs.22,733/- recovered from the petitioner, w a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDD Date:19.10.2010 VGB