JUDGMENT : L.P.A. No. 458 of 2013 1. The original writ petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking invalidation of action taken by his employer Bokaro Steel Plant in recovering certain sum advanced to him along with cumulative interest at the rate of 18 % per annum. 2. The original writ petitioner had obtained house building loan in the year 1997 for a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- for construction of a new house. He, however, did not complete the construction. During his service tenure, recovery had started and on the verge of his retirement, a sum of rupees six lakh was shown as outstanding in the final settlement statement. The aforesaid sum including interest was recovered from his retiral dues. The learned First Court found deficit in compliance of the principles of natural justice and held in the judgment under appeal: “10. It is the contention of the respondents that the principal amount has not been reckoned and calculation has been made from the date of disbursal of first instalment and after calculating penal rate of interest @ 18% per annum, figure comes to Rs. 6,81,777.70./- However, the chart at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit shows that the interest charged on compound rate has been added to the principal every time and again charged on the compound rate has been added to the principal every time and again charged at the same @ 18% compound rate of interest. This is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. The aforesaid deductions from the post retirement benefits of the petitioner has been made obviously without any further show-cause or notice to either the original petitioner or his legal heirs. The petitioner had also retired in 2009 and now deceased. In such circumstances therefore, the impugned recovery of the outstanding loan amount on account of new house building loan with interest @ 18 % per annum, is vitiated in law on account of failure to comply with the principles of natural justice. Respondents despite being conscious of the fact that the total loan amount was recovered by October, 2008, have chosen to undertake such an exercise only after retirement of the petitioner. Therefore, the recovery of the aforesaid amount cannot be sustained in law and it is held to be arbitrary and illegal. It is accordingly quashed. Respondents despite being conscious of the fact that the total loan amount was recovered by October, 2008, have chosen to undertake such an exercise only after retirement of the petitioner. Therefore, the recovery of the aforesaid amount cannot be sustained in law and it is held to be arbitrary and illegal. It is accordingly quashed. Respondents shall refund the entire amount deducted to the legal heirs of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed.” 3. It is not in dispute that loan amount was not utilised and barring payment of two instalments there was no further use of the said sum. In this perspective, considering the fact that the original writ petitioner had retired on 31st January, 2009 and subsequently, passed away on 7th October, 2011 and at present he is represented by his legal heirs, so far as the non-utilisation of the loan amount is concerned, in our view, proper course might have been to remand the matter to the authorities and not outright invalidation of the recovery proceeding, which course has been directed to be taken by the learned First Court. 4. But, considering the factual situation, we do not think further proceeding ought to be inflicted upon the legal heirs of the deceased employee. In our opinion, recovery of simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum would meet the interest of justice. 5. We, accordingly, direct the appellant to recalculate the sum which ought to be recovered on the basis of our direction and refund to the legal heirs of the writ petitioner the differential between the sum already collected from the original petitioner as also subsequently recovered from his retiral dues and the sum which would have to be repaid in terms of our direction, on the basis of simple interest to be calculated at 9% per annum. This exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of communication of this order. The order of the learned First Court stands modified to the above extent. The direction for refund would be subject to the condition that such recalculation actually shows that there was recovery beyond what the employer was entitled to make following the course directed by us. 6. The order of the learned First Court stands modified to the above extent. The direction for refund would be subject to the condition that such recalculation actually shows that there was recovery beyond what the employer was entitled to make following the course directed by us. 6. The Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of without any order as to costs. 7. The Letters patent Appeal is preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased employee and they seek refund of the entire amount recovered along with interest. 8. So far as entitlement of the legal heirs of the deceased employee is concerned, we have adjudicated the question in L.P.A. No. 458 of 2013. 9. This being the position, present appeal has become in fructuous and shall stand disposed of. D.N. Patel, J. / I agree.