JUDGMENT : Valmiki J. Mehta, J. 1. Petitioner by means of this writ petition claims release of pension amount from March, 1999 to August, 1999. 2. Respondent nos.1 and 2 have filed their counter-affidavit alongwith the calculations as Annexure R-4 which shows that petitioner was paid an excess amount of pension of Rs. 15,632/-, and which was thereafter recovered way bank in the year 1999, and to which, petitioner never raised an objection for about four years. 3. In the rejoinder-affidavit which is filed on behalf of the petitioner calculations are not disputed because petitioner has not filed his own calculations, and therefore, it is clear that the petitioner received an excess amount of Rs.15,632/-. 4. No one can be allowed to retain excess amount which is received and the recent judgment in this regard is the judgment in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. 2012(8) SCC 417 . Para 14 of the said judgment is relevant and which emphasized the aspect of money being tax payer’s money, and the same reads as under:- “14. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as "tax payers money" which belongs neither to the officers who have effected over-payment nor to the recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in such situations. The question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by the Government officers, may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid/received without authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment.” (emphasis added) 5. Any amount paid/received without authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment.” (emphasis added) 5. The writ petition is also in my opinion barred by delay and laches because an act of 1999 cannot be challenged after four years by filing of a representation, and the writ petition itself is filed in the year 2012. 6. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition, which is therefore dismissed, leaving parties to bear their own costs.