HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR W.P.No. 8247 of 2009 O R D E R: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) The respondent herein worked as a Gramin Dak Sevak Male Carrier in Jainath Post Office, Adilabad and retired on 14.04.2008, on attaining the age of superannuation. Subsequently, vide proceedings dated 07.05.2008, he was sanctioned an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards severance amount and an amount of Rs.,28,433/- was directed to be withheld, on account of excess payment of TRCA. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed O.A.No. 490 of 2008 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, seeking to set aside the proceedings, dated 07.05.2008, issued by the 1st petitioner herein. The case of the petitioners in the O.A. was that, after his retirement, the respondent was entitled to receive Rs.18,000/- towards ex gratia gratuity amount and the same was paid to him, but however, insofar as severance amount of Rs.30,000/- is concerned, the P&T audit personnel inspected the office and calculated the TRCA on cycle beat formula instead of foot beat with effect from 01.03.19098, pursuant to the orders in D.G. Post G.NHO.14-10/2003-PAP, dated 24.09.2003, and worked out excess paid TRCA for the period from 01.03.1998 to 30.11.2003 as Rs.28,433/- and accordingly, ordered for recovery of the same. The Tribunal, placing reliance upon the unreported judgments rendered by it in O.A. Nos. 1011 of 2001 and 777 of 2006, wherein it has been held that the employee was not responsible for any excess payment of salary and that recovery could not be effected for any excess payment if the employee was not guilty of any misrepresentation, allowed the O.A. and directed the petitioners herein to release the withheld amount to the respondent. Challenging the said decision, the petitioners filed this Writ Petition. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the subject matter of this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 18478 of 2004 and batch, dated 06.07.2009, wherein it has been held that re- fixation of TRCA is by the Department itself and that the Tribunal has rightly held that there was no representation made by the applicant and therefore, it is not open for the Department to effect the recoveries. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the issue as to whether the recoveries can be made from the employee or not, was dealt with by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad[1], wherein it has been held as under: “ Considering the fact that there was no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud, which could be attributed to the respondent and considering the fact that the appellant had allowed the respondent to work and got works done by him and paid salary, it would be unfair at this stage to deduct the same amount of salary paid to him. Accordingly, we are in agreement with the Division Bench decision that since the respondent was allowed to work and was paid salary for his work during the period of two years after his actual date of retirement without raising any objection whatsoever, no deduction could be made for that period from the retiral dues of the respondent.” In view of the ratio laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court, we do not see any error committed by the Tribunal in directing the petitioners herein to release the withheld amount to the respondent. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. ------------------------- (V. ESWARAIAH, J) ----------------------------------- (VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR,J) 3rd February 2010 Note: Issue CC in a week ksld [1] (2009) 3 SCC 117