ORDER 1. Admittedly, during period from January 1992 to August 1997 the appellant paid some excess amount to the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, who were employed on different posts in Sindri Unit of the Fertilizer Corporation of India, in different months, in addition to their monthly salary through the payment slips. The appellant-corporation decided to recover the excess amount paid to them, during the aforesaid period together with interest @ 17% per annum with effect from the date of withdrawal of the excess amount. Those employees-respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed separate applications before the General Manager to request the management to exempt them from recovering the interest element. 2. The Deputy General Manager (Finance) on 31.3.1998 made following notes on the said request "Request can be considered if all of them deposit fifty percent of the amount lump sum immediately". According to respondent Nos. 1 to 5, the said direction dated 31.3.1998 was not communicated to them. However, it was brought to the notice of the General Manager that as per prevailing rules, the interest is deducted on the net C.B. amount from the employees, who have the C.B. and the said amount is recovered in installment. The interest is charged as per existing bank rate of interest. Consequently suggestion on 10.4.1998 was given by the Deputy General Manager (Finance) to the General Manager that if the employees concerned deposit full amount in one installment, interest may be waived off, to which the General Manager agreed on 13.4.1998. 3. The said decision was forwarded to the Chief Executive Officer" for information and further necessary action on 5.5.1998. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have not denied that thereafter the Chief Executive Officer did not communicate/inform them about the said decision. 4. It is relevant to mention here that the management had started deducting 50% amount of monthly salary of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 from February 1998 itself. Pursuant to the communication dated 23.2.1998, those employees were asked to intimate whether they were prepared to pay the dues within one month or whether they agree to the recovery in monthly instalments @ 50% of the basic pay and D.A. from their monthly salary. 1 to 5 from February 1998 itself. Pursuant to the communication dated 23.2.1998, those employees were asked to intimate whether they were prepared to pay the dues within one month or whether they agree to the recovery in monthly instalments @ 50% of the basic pay and D.A. from their monthly salary. It is also mentioned in the said communication that if no intimation is received, recovery from their monthly salary shall be deemed to have been consented by them and the recover would commence from the month of February, 1998. 5. Against the said decision, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 908 of 2000(R) which was disposed of by order dated 4.12.2001. The learned Single Judge did not interfere with the direction of the management for returning the entire excess amount in one lump sum and all of them agreed to return the entire excess amount not already deducted/ recovered by the Management in one lump sum within 30 days. 6. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ application on the basis of the decision taken by the Management on 10.4.1998 that if the employees concerned deposited full amount in one instalment, the interest may be waived off, observed that if the employees returned the entire excess amount within 30 days then the management shall take decision to waive the claim of interest. A direction was also given to concerned employees to file a representation for waiver of the interest. On receipt of the representation the respondents shall take a decision for the waiver of the interest within two weeks thereafter. 7. From perusal of the note sheet dated 10.4.1998 which was annexed to the counter affidavit as Annexure K, it appears that on. the application filed by the concerned workmen to exempt them from paying interest on the excess amount in question, the Deputy General Manager (Finance) put his note that if the employees concerned deposit the full amount in one instalment, we may waive off the interest and forwarded it to the General Manager for consideration. It was also placed before the Chief Vigilance Officer, who had put his note dated 11.4.1998 that no departure from existing practice needs to be followed please" and the General Manager dated 13.4.1998 agreed with the aforesaid note of the Chief Vigilance Officer. It was also placed before the Chief Vigilance Officer, who had put his note dated 11.4.1998 that no departure from existing practice needs to be followed please" and the General Manager dated 13.4.1998 agreed with the aforesaid note of the Chief Vigilance Officer. Consequently the application filed by the concerned employees for exemption from paying interest was not accepted by the Management. It appears that an error on record was committed in treating the proposal dated 10.4.1998 of the Deputy General Manager (Finance) as confidential decision of the Management, whereas the said purposal was not accepted by the Chief Vigilance Officer, who was of the opinion that there was no special reason or circumstance to depart from the existing practice in this case, to which the General Manager agreed fully. So the notes of the Deputy General Manager (Finance) was not approved finally. 8. Hence, in our opinion, the direction given by the learned Single Judge, for taking decision for waiving the interest on the basis of the aforesaid note of the Deputy General Manager (Finance) dated 10.4.1998, treating the same to be the confidential decision of the Management was not proper and can not be sustained. 9. We, therefore, do not think proper to interfere with the decision of the management, which was based on the existing practice there, to recover the interest amount on the excess amount in question paid to the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 10. As such, we set aside part of the order dated 4.12.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge directing the Management for taking decision to waive the interest. 11. In the result the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.