Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. The petitioner Union of India is aggrieved by the Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) upholding the claim of respondent No. 1 who was allowed refund of the amount, deducted out of retiral benefits. 2. Claim of respondent No. 1 was that he was appointed as casual labour in the year 1971. He was to retire on 31.5.2004 but in fact, he was retired on 10.4.2006 on account of some mistake in recording his date of birth. Subsequently, salary paid to him was deducted out of retiral dues on the ground that he was wrongly allowed to work after 31.5.2004 of which he was also aware. 3. The CAT held that for whatever reasons, if employee actually worked, salary paid to him could not be recovered back from the retiral dues. 4. The petitioner filed a review petition relying on judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Radha Kishun v. Union of India & Others, (1997)9 Supreme Court Cases 239. The review petition was dismissed. The judgment in Radha Kishun was distinguished by observing that there was no allegation of any mis-representation against the employee and in such a situation, the judgment in Radha Kishun will not apply. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment in Radha Kishun was wrongly distinguished and was fully applicable. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Even though observations in Radha Kishun, supra, may, to some extent, support the submission of the petitioner, the judgment does not lay down any inflexible rule of universal application that in every case where employee is required to work, his salary can be recovered back on the ground that he was wrongly required to work of which he was aware. Reference may be made to observations in Col. B.J. Akkara (retd.) v. Government of India & Others, 2006(11) SCC 709, holding that in such a situation, the benefits extended to employee cannot be withdrawn. Therein it was observed :- "27. The last question to be considered is whether relief should be granted against the recovery of the excess payments made on account of the wrong interpretation/understanding of the circular dated 7-6-1999. Therein it was observed :- "27. The last question to be considered is whether relief should be granted against the recovery of the excess payments made on account of the wrong interpretation/understanding of the circular dated 7-6-1999. This Court has consistently granted relief against recovery of excess wrong payment of emoluments/allowances from an employee, if the following conditions are fulfilled (vide Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana 1995 Supp(1) SCC 18, Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, (1994)2 SCC 521; Union of India v. M. Bhaskar, (1996)6 SCC 139.) (a) The excess payment was not made on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee. (b) Such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 28. Such relief, restraining back recovery of excess payment, is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, in exercise of judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is implemented. A government servant, particularly one in the lower rungs service would spend whatever emoluments he receives for the upkeep of his family. If he receives an excess payment for a long period, he would spend it, genuinely believing that he is entitled to it. As any subsequent action to recover the excess payment will cause undue hardship to him, relief is granted in that behalf. But where the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, courts will not grant relief against recovery. The matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case refuse to grant such relief against recovery". 7. In view of above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the CAT. 8. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.