JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. AS Lodh, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents no. 1 and 2. Also heard Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 3 and 4 and Mr. H. Deb, learned ASG appearing for the respondent no.5, Accountant General (A&E), Tripura. 2. The writ petitioner took a loan of Rs. 73,000/- from the Tripura Housing Board, now Tripura Housing and Construction Board, in terms of sanction the letter no. F.4(80)/THE/89/PET/ V/1000-43 dated 18.06.1994 (Annexure A-1 to the writ petition). The petitioner had been regularly paying the aggred installments, but when the petitioner retired from the service on super- annuation, to the petitioner’s dismay, he found that a sum of Rs. 42,174/- has been deducted from his retiral benefits and without any notice. When the petitioner inquired into the matter, he came to know that when he was posted under the Electrical Division No. 7, Ambassa for the period from July, 2002 to July 2005, the installments as deducted from his salary to the extent of Rs.42,174/- was not remitted to the Tripura Housing and Construction Board against the loan account. 3. The veracity of the said statement as made by the petitioner has been clearly admitted by the respondents No. 3 and 4 by filing the counter affidavit. Further more, they have enclosed a statement of recovery at Annexure-1 to their reply. The respondents have however, submitted that prior to 01.01.2005 the deduction was made by the Power Department as the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (for short the TSECL) has come into being on 01.01.2005. The deduction was continued following the earlier process and deposit was made in the Government Treasury. They have thus fairly submitted that a sum of Rs.42,174/- even though was deducted for purpose of recovery of the housing loan but the amount was deposited in the Government Treasury without remitting the same to the Tripura Housing and Construction Board. 4. When the petitioner’s account was to be settled finally on his retirement, without inquiring into, the fact that the petitioner had deposited all the instalments regularly, the respondents No. 3 and 4 deducted a sum of Rs.42,174/-. Thereafter, the petitioner had inquired why such amount had been deducted. 4. When the petitioner’s account was to be settled finally on his retirement, without inquiring into, the fact that the petitioner had deposited all the instalments regularly, the respondents No. 3 and 4 deducted a sum of Rs.42,174/-. Thereafter, the petitioner had inquired why such amount had been deducted. In the process, he came to know that such deposit was made to the Treasury for no reason and he was shown as a defaulter in the loan account maintained by the Tripura Housing and Construction Board. However, after deduction and deposit of the said sum arbitrarily by the respondents No. 3 and 4, the Tripura Housing and Construction Board, Agartala had issued a no-demand certificate dated 27.01.2009 (Annexure A-5 to the writ petition). So far, the loan account is concerned, there is no controversy. This entire writ petition is structured for realization of the said amount of Rs.42,174/- as deducted from the petitioner without any basis or valid demand. Now, it has been fairly admitted by the respondents for lapse or mistake, the instalments were not remitted to the Tripura Housing and Construction Board to adjust the loan account. 5. The respondents No. 5 has clearly admitted in their reply as follows: “it is evident from instant para as well as from Annexure 9 of the writ petition that the DDO of the writ petitioner had deducted the recovery of house building loan from the monthly bill of the writ petitioner from July, 2002 to July, 2005 @Rs.1,278/- per month and thus total amount came to Rs.42,174/- which was booked under the major head of 7610, sub major head 00, minor head 201, sub minor head 995155 in respect of house building loan afforded by Tripura Housing and Construction Board, Agartala. It may be mentioned here that the above mentioned major, minor head, etc. are operated only when any Govt. servant takes loan from a Govt. concerned. But in the instant case the Tripura Housing and Construction Board, Agartala is a non-Govt. body, this is why the amount so deducted by the DDO from the writ petitioner had already been credited into Govt. account and the Housing Board had not got the said amount in their credit. servant takes loan from a Govt. concerned. But in the instant case the Tripura Housing and Construction Board, Agartala is a non-Govt. body, this is why the amount so deducted by the DDO from the writ petitioner had already been credited into Govt. account and the Housing Board had not got the said amount in their credit. As the matter was not known to the office of the Respondent No.5 in the respective accounting month i.e. July, 2002 to July, 2005, so accordingly as per nomenclature as received from the concerned treasury, the office of the Respondent No. 5 had booked the amount under the head of 7610. Moreover the office of the Respondent No. 5 usually does not handle or keep account of any private/non-Govt. loan taken by any govt. servant. This is why this office has no role to resolve the issue”. Thus, it is clear from the said affidavit that the amount that was deducted from the petitioner is lying under the head 7610 in the Treasury. 6. In view of this, the respondents No. 1 to 4 are directed to refund the said amount to the extent of Rs.42,174/- with interest @7% from 01.02.2009 till the payment is made to the writ petitioner. The said refund with interest shall be made within a period of 3(three) months from today. It is made further clear that the respondents if they are so inclined, may recover the interest part of the said amount from the Officer for whose lapses the amount was not remitted to the Tripura Housing and Construction Board. 7. With this observation and direction this writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs. A copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel appearing for the parties.