- (1.) Heard H.M. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Srivastava for the respondents. The petitioner retired on 30.4.2006. The petitioner had been given an office advance in the year 2003 to the extent of Rs. 1,40,000/-. The said advance had to be adjusted from the G.P.F. amount payable to the petitioner which was paid over to him with interest.
(2.) The impugned order dated 23.1.2010 seeks to recover the said amount which has been wrongly paid to the petitioner.
(3.) Sri Srivastava contends that there is no mistake on the part of the petitioner and the impugned order itself indicates that it was on account of the mistake by the department that the payment has been made. He relies on 2 decisions namely Union of India and others v. Sujatha Vedachalam, 2000 9 SCC 187, and Krishna Swaroop Srivastava v. Director of Panchayatraj, U.P., Lucknow, 2001 3 UPLBEC 1985, to contend that in absence of any mistake on the part of the petitioner, the recovery along with interest could not have been made.;