petitioner i0 t owvard his Ga5e a to wy {he educion rom t gratuity amoum being ”excess amoum cannot be made. The contentio f ihe iearnéd counsel fer the peiitione merits acceptance. ’ his Court In Vldyadhar Trwari (s ), has held that the exces payment It any, made to the petltloner he was not at fault and th mount received‘byv him might have been nsed by adjusting himsel accordingly treating the samevas his salary. At this stage, directin ecovery of/ the alleged excess iamount Afrom the pensmnar r y ' benefits/gratuity amount of the petitioner will not be just and proper. In View of foregoing and as admitted by leamed counsel appearing fo the parties, this petition is allowed in the terms of the order passed in Vldyadhar Tiwan (supra) ie the impugned order dated 2942-2001 Annexure P12) deducting a sum of Rs 38 378/— from the tetlrai dues of he petitioner is hereby quashed The petitioner is entitied to full ensmnary benefits/gratuity amount Without any deduction lf the said amount is already deducted from the gratuity, the same shall be payahie o the petitioner With Simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date rt became due till the payment is made However it is open to th espondents to take recourse to Rule 65 cf the Rules, 1976 if so r 6 ( t p t x r advrsed, in accordance Wih law, after followmg basu: pnnciles t p gt SdL [ Satish K. Agnihoti‘i udge i t o, T w f h dt f hé n o T s e' a f ? J