IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12594 of 2010 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY- CUM-D.G., MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF POST, DAK BHAWAN, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI 2. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, BIHAR CIRCLE, PATNA 3. THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, NORTHERN, REGION, MUZAFFARPUR 4. THE DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS (P) PATNA 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, SAMASTIPUR DIVISION, SAMASTIPUR. ……………..PETITIONERS. Versus 1. SHRI RAM JAPAN SINGH S/O LATE HRIDAI NARAYAN SINGH R/O VILL.- KOYALA KUND, P.O.- MAYAGHAT, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR. ……………….RESPONDENT. ----------- For the Union of India: Mr. Sastyendra Kumar Jha, C.G.C. For the Respondent: Mr. Hemant Kumar Karn, Advocate. --------- 4 29.10.2010 Heard the parties. This case arises out of the order dated 28.01.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench in O.A. No.461 of 2009 filed by the respondent-applicant seeking refund of the amount, namely, the excess amount disclosed in the audit report. The petitioners have challenged the said order of refund of Rs. 30,785/- of the tribunal on the ground as mentioned in sub. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 13 of the writ application. The tribunal after having heard the parties had directed 2 the petitioners-respondents (Union of India & ors) to refund the excess amount recovered from the respondent-applicant. It was further directed to refund the said amount within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the said order. The said order has been challenged by the petitioners- respondents in this writ application on the ground that the fact with regard to payment of excess amount to the respondent- applicant was disclosed in the audit report after eleven years of the service tenure of the respondent-applicant and accordingly order for recovery was passed against the respondent. Counsel for the respondent has contended that it is not the case of the petitioners that the respondent is responsible for excess payment as the same has been made under bonafide mistake and the same was continued till seven years before retirement of the respondent. Counsel for the respondent has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ‘Syed Abdul Quadir & Ors Vs. State of Bihr & Ors.’ reported in 2009 (1) SCC (L & S) 744 wherein it was held by the Apex Court that the recovery of the excess amount cannot be made unless it is proved that the amount is paid by way of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not produced any material to substantiate that the amounts are paid under misrepresentation or fraud. In the above circumstances, following the ratio of 3 judgment of the Apex Court as laid down in the case of Syed Abdul Quadir (Supra), we are not inclined to interfere with the same. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) Abhay Kumar/ S.K.Dutta.