1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1638 OF 2011 (Parbhakar K. Shende & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. JULY 04, 2011. Heard Shri Sadavarte, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Sambre, learned GP for respondents No. 1 to 4 and Shri Meghe, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 – College. Shri Sambre, learned GP points out that interest has been charged in accordance with law as amount has been wrongly paid to the petitioners and has been enjoyed by them. Shri Meghe, learned counsel also adopts the arguments of learned GP. Transportation Allowance should have been paid to the petitioners as per rates applicable in “B” Grade city, however, it has been paid to them as if they are working in “A” Grade city. The bills for the same were submitted by Respondent No. 5 – College and the petitioners have received that payment from time to time. It is not the case that the petitioners are in any way instrumental in drawing this excess amount. Before 2 us, the challenge is only to the interest part of that recovery. As we find that the petitioners are not instrumental in procuring such excess payment and there is no challenge to the amount of recovery paid in excess, we find charging of interest on said excess payment, from the petitioners, unjustified. The said demand is accordingly set aside. Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.