ORDER : 1. Instant application has been filed by the petitioner seeking clarification of the order dt.17-1-2017 passed by this Court. 2. The writ petition was filed by the husband of the deceased Chandrakanta Sharma who was in service and there was a dispute in reference to her date of birth recorded in the service book and finally the controversy was put to rest and it was held that her date of birth recorded in the service book to be taken note of for all practical purposes was 1-11-1943 and she should have been retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-10-2001 and this fact is not disputed that she has served the respondent-institution upto 29-9-2003 for almost 23 months over the period of her superannuation and it also remain indisputed that the authorities initiated recovery proceedings from the deceased employee for the alleged excess payment made to her of the period she worked for 23 months vide order dt.20-9-2003 and that came to be set aside by the Service Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.2386/2003 vide order dt.14-8-2013 and the order of the Tribunal was never the subject matter of challenge and that has attained finality. The husband of the deceased approached this Court by filing of a writ petition for grant of interest & other ancillary benefits for the period in dispute which has been decided by this Court vide order dt.17-1-2017. 3. Sh. K.C. Sharma Adv., appearing for the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court that as per the First Pension Inner Report prepared by Government of Rajasthan the gross amount which was payable to her was Rs.11,54,933/- but after making deduction of Rs.2,64,775/- a sum of Rs.7,18,684/- was paid to her towards her terminal benefits. 4. Counsel submits that once the order pursuant to which recovery proceedings were initiated by the department dt.20-9- 2003 has been set aside by the Tribunal vide order dt.14-8-2013 at least the amount which has been adjusted by the respondent of Rs.264775/- was to be released as being her actual salary and to this extent order of the Court dt.17-1-2017 needs clarification. 5. Sh. Rishi Pal Agarwal Additional Government Counsel submits that what is being contended has been taken care of in the order dt.17-1-2017 and needs no further clarification. 6. 5. Sh. Rishi Pal Agarwal Additional Government Counsel submits that what is being contended has been taken care of in the order dt.17-1-2017 and needs no further clarification. 6. This fact has not been controverted that the order which was passed by the respondents pursuant to which recovery proceedings were initiated dt.20-9-2003 has been set aside by the Tribunal vide order dt.14-8-2013, the alleged excess payment made to her for the actual service which she rendered over the period of her superannuation order of the Tribunal has attained finality. 7. In the given facts & circumstances when the order pursuant to which recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents dt.20-9-2003 has been set aside by the Tribunal vide order dt.14-8-2013 the respondents could not be said to be justified in withholding Rs.2,64,775/- towards the salary for the actual service which she had rendered of 23 months to be specific from 1-11-2001 to 29-9-2003 and this Court also finds justification that the salary for the actual service rendered by her could not have been deducted/withheld by the respondent and that she was entitled for and this Court is persuaded to make a clarification in the order dt.17-1-2017 as prayed for. 8. Accordingly, it is made clear that apart from the payment which are due & payable to the petitioner the additional sum of Rs.2,64,775/- which has been deducted by the respondents from the benefits payable to her is in reference to 23 months salary of the service rendered over the period of her superannuation, the respondents shall pay an additional sum of Rs.2,64,775/- for the period for which she had worked within a period of two months. 9. The present order may be considered to be part of the order dt.17-1-2017. The petition in the above terms stands disposed of.