ORDER: The above writ petition has been filed praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in Prop. R.C.No. 8237/93/K2, dated 11.4.1995 and that of the first respondent in Pro. R.C. No.46196/P2/97, dated 7.1.1999, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.66,433.90 recovered from the retirement and pensionary benefits of the petitioner within a time frame with 18% interest p.a. till the date of repayment. 2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, it comes to be known that the petitioner, had retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.1.1994 in the category of Assistant Grade I and at the time of his retirement, there was neither any enquiry nor even a charge memo pending against the petitioner, but nearly after six months of his retirement, the second respondent, had, in and by his proceeding in Pro.Na.Ka. No.8237/93/K2, dated 29.56.1994 holding that the petitioner was responsible for the unrecovered loan amount of Rs.1,39,120.45 relating to the periods 1986-88 and 1991-93, directed the petitioner to collect the said dues lest an order of recovery to follow and ultimately in consideration of the representations of the petitioner and the other records, the second respondent found the petitioner responsible for non-recovery of a sum of Rs.66,433.90 thereby recovering and adjusting the said sum from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent and since the said appeal also came to be dismissed by the first respondent thereby confirming the order of the second respondent, the petitioner has come forward to file the above writ petition. 3. It is argued on the part of the respondents that while the petitioner was employed in the respondent Board, he sold Khadi on credit basis to various Government servants over and above their basic pay and he ought to have collected the amount under question in equal installments within ten months and wiped out the loan dues as per make good the loss sustained by the Board and hence impugned orders are passed recovering the said loss from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner and would pray to dismiss the above writ petition. 4. 4. In the above facts and circumstances, it is pertinent to note an order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.5982 of 1987, dated 3.7.2001 wherein under identical circumstances in respect of another employee of the very same respondents Board, when a similar attempt was made to withhold the sum of the pensionary benefits, the learned Judge has held: “It is not disputed that the amounts allegedly due are referable to the purchases made by the Government servants attached to the department. I fail to understand how the said amount could be recovered from the petitioner or how he could be held responsible to make good the said dues. While acting as a Manager, he is only a staff of the Board. When, the purchases are permitted to be made on credit by Government servants, the Khadi Board undertakes the risk of supplying the materials on credit. In order to ensure the prompt payment of the dues in Form 13, the Government also obtains an undertaking from the purchaser to the monthly pay. Even apart from the entitlement for such recovery under Sec.23, the Khadi Board is entitled to proceed against the purchaser to recover the said amount as arrears of land revenue. By no stretch of imagination, a staff of the Board can be held responsible for the recovery of the said amount much less can there can be nay hold on the retirement benefits.” With such observations, the learned single Judge of this Court had set aside the impugned order therein, following which another learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. Nos.497 to 499 of 1997, by his order dated 11.10.2001 while setting aside the impugned orders had directed the respondents to release the payment which was withheld with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date the same was withheld till the date of payment. 5. Since the subject matter is one squarely falling in line with both the above said orders earlier passed by this Court, this Court is of the firm view that a similar order passed in this matter also would meet the ends of justice. In result, (i) the above writ petition is allowed following the orders of this Court made in W.P. No.5982 of 1997, dated 3.7.2001 and W.P. Nos.497 to 499 of 1997, dated 11.10.2001. In result, (i) the above writ petition is allowed following the orders of this Court made in W.P. No.5982 of 1997, dated 3.7.2001 and W.P. Nos.497 to 499 of 1997, dated 11.10.2001. (ii) The order of the second respondent in Pro.Na.Ka. No.8237/83/K2, dated 11.4.1995 and the order of the first respondent in Pro.R.C. No.46196/P2/97, dated 7.1.1999 are hereby quashed. (iii) The respondents are hereby directed to release the sum of Rs.66,433.90 (Rupees Sixtysix thousand four hundred thirty three and Ninety paise only), which was recovered from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner, and pay the same to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, with interest at 12% p.a. from the date the said sum was withheld till the date of payment. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.