JUDGMENT AND ORDER : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Ms. Z. Zhimomi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. L.T. Sangtam, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Nagaland, Mr. N. Mozhui, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the Accountant General, Nagaland and Mr. A. Zhimomi, the learned Standing Counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 2. The petitioner herein, who is the wife of one Detholie Chadi (since deceased) has approached this Court challenging the actions on the part of the Respondent Authorities, more particularly, the respondent No. 6 in not finalizing the family pension of the petitioner as well as for setting aside a communication dated 18.07.2023 issued by the Senior Accounts Officer (Pension) of the Office of the respondent No. 6. For the purpose of deciding the dispute involved in the instant proceedings, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the facts which led to the filing of the instant proceedings. 3. The petitioner's husband Late Detholie Chadi was appointed as a Lower Division Assistant on adhoc basis in the Office of the Public Prosecutor, Nagaland, Kohima vide an order dated 13.11.1984. Subsequent thereto, his service was regularized vide an order dated 21.11.1986 and in that regard a Service Book was also opened. Vide an order dated 03.11.2004 the petitioner's husband was allowed to officiate in the post of Upper Division Assistant (UDA) and later on vide an order dated 19.08.2010, his appointment was regularized as UDA in the Office of the District and Sessions Judge, Dimapur. 4. The petitioner’s husband continued to serve in the post of UDA and subsequently as UDA-cum-Peshkar in the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dimapur, Nagaland till he expired on 09.05.2022. The pension papers on account of the death of the husband of the petitioner were sent to the Office of the respondent No. 6 for finalization of the pension papers. However, the Senior Accounts Officer (Pension) of the Office of the respondent No. 6 had issued a communication dated 18.07.2023 raising issues on account of excess payment due to wrong fixation of pay as well as on the ground of overstay. Under such circumstances, the proposal so sent was returned for resubmission. 5. However, the Senior Accounts Officer (Pension) of the Office of the respondent No. 6 had issued a communication dated 18.07.2023 raising issues on account of excess payment due to wrong fixation of pay as well as on the ground of overstay. Under such circumstances, the proposal so sent was returned for resubmission. 5. This Court finds it relevant at this stage to take note of certain events which are relevant to the issue pertaining to the impugned communication dated 18.07.2023. The Department of Justice & Law, Government of Nagaland had made the Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India in the name and style of “The Nagaland District Court Employees Service Rules, 2017” (for short, “the Rules of 2017”). Vide a Notification dated 08.09.2017 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Nagaland, it was stipulated that the said Rules of 2017 shall come into force on the date of publication in the Official Gazette. This Notification was duly published in the Nagaland Gazette Extraordinary on 08.09.2017. The service of the petitioner's husband came within the purview of the Rules of 2017 w.e.f 08.09.2017. 6. Subsequent thereto, the Government of Nagaland through its Chief Secretary issued a Notification dated 03.10.2018 whereby the Notification dated 08.09.2017 by which the Rules of 2017 was notified in the Official Gazette was recalled on the ground of non-clearance of the P&AR Department. This Notification dated 03.10.2018 was put to challenge before this Court by an association in the name and style of “All Nagaland Judicial Ministerial Staff Association” which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No. 192(K)/2018. This Notification dated 03.10.2018 was stayed by a detailed reasoned interim order dated 29.11.2018 by this Court. In spite of the order of stay of the Notification dated 03.10.2018, the respondent No. 2 vide an order dated 23.10.2019 released the petitioner's husband from public service as well as from acquaintance roll w.e.f. 30.11.2019 (A.N.) as the husband of the petitioner had completed 35 (thirty five) years of service. This was done so in terms with Section 3(1) and Section 3(2) of the Nagaland Retirement from Public Employment Act, 1991 (for short, “the Act of 1991”). 7. It is very relevant at this stage to take note of Rule 24 of the Rules of 2017 which deals with the question of retirement for those employees who come within the ambit of the Rules of 2017. 7. It is very relevant at this stage to take note of Rule 24 of the Rules of 2017 which deals with the question of retirement for those employees who come within the ambit of the Rules of 2017. The said Rule being pertinent to the dispute involved is reproduced herein under: “ 24. Retirement Except as otherwise provided in this Rule, every employee working under the District Judicial Court Establishment shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years. Provided that all employees whose date of birth is the 1st day of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of 60 years.” 8. From a perusal of the above Rule, it would be seen that every employee working under the District Judicial Court Establishment shall retire from the service on the afternoon of the last day of the month on which he attains the age of 60 (sixty) years. The proviso added to the said Rule stipulates that all employees whose date of birth is the first day of the month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of 60 (sixty) years. It is however relevant to observe that Rule 24 of the Rules of 2017 was amended w.e.f. 26.02.2025 thereby making the said Rule pari materia to Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Act of 1991. 9. In view of the order of stay granted by this Court dated 29.11.2018 in WP(C) No. 192(K)/2018 whereby the Notification dated 03.10.2018 was stayed, the husband of the petitioner could not have been released, as the Rules of 2017 was holding the field. Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.10.2019, the husband of the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 217(K)/2019 whereby this Court vide another detailed order stayed the order dated 23.10.2019 releasing the husband of the petitioner. While the writ petitions being WP(C) No. 192(K)/2018 and WP(C) No. 217(K)/2019 were pending, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland issued another Notification dated 19.06.2020. By this Notification, the Notification earlier issued by the Justice and Law Department, Government of Nagaland dated 03.10.2018, which was a subject matter of challenge in WP(C) No. 192(K)/2018 was recalled. While the writ petitions being WP(C) No. 192(K)/2018 and WP(C) No. 217(K)/2019 were pending, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland issued another Notification dated 19.06.2020. By this Notification, the Notification earlier issued by the Justice and Law Department, Government of Nagaland dated 03.10.2018, which was a subject matter of challenge in WP(C) No. 192(K)/2018 was recalled. The contents of the Notification dated 19.06.2020 is relevant for the purpose of the instant dispute and as such the same is reproduced herein under: “ GOVERNMENT of NAGALAND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE& LAW KOHIMA NOTIFICATION Dated Kohima the June 2020 NO. LAW/JUD-1/2016:: The Notification issued by the Justice and rd Law Department dated 3 Oct’ 2018 pertaining to “The Nagaland District Court Employees Service Rule 2017” is hereby recalled. This is in pursuance of the Hon’ble High Court order dated 29/11/2018 in W.P. (C). No. 192(K)/2018 relating to All Nagaland Judicial Ministerial Staff Association Vrs The State of Nagaland & 5 others and order dated 18/11/2019 in W.P.(C) No. 217(K)/2019, Shri. Dietholie Chadi Vrs the State of Nagaland & 3 others. Sd/- (TEMJEN TOY), IAS Chief Secretary of the Govt. of Nagaland. No. LAW/JUD-1/2016 Kohima dated 19 June 2020” 10. In view of the Notification dated 19.06.2020 and the same being placed before this Court when WP(C) No. 192(K)/2018 and WP(C) No. 217(K)/2019 were taken up, this Court disposed of both the writ petitions by a common order dated 25.08.2020. Paragraph Nos. 6 to 9 being relevant is reproduced herein under: “6. Ms. Z. Zhimomi, after having placed the copy of the Notification submitted that in view of this Notification dated 19th June 2020 (reproduced herein above) both the writ petitions have become infructuous. 7. Ms. Livika, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents submitted that the said Notification dated 19/6/2020 has been published in the official Gazette therefore, she has no objection in disposing both the writ petitions as in-fructuous. 8. In view of the above stated facts submitted by both the learned counsels, this Court is of the view that the two writ petitions have become infructuous. Accordingly, they are disposed of as infructuous. 8. In view of the above stated facts submitted by both the learned counsels, this Court is of the view that the two writ petitions have become infructuous. Accordingly, they are disposed of as infructuous. But to make it clear it is stated here that “The Nagaland District Court Employees Service Rules 2017” as published/notified remains enforced since the date of its publication in the official Gazette and therefore, the service conditions of the petitioner in the second writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 217/2019) shall be governed by that Rule. 9. Needless but in view of the new rule having come into force since its publication the respondents are directed to take all necessary steps without further delay for full implementation of the same so that the administration of justice in the District Courts continues smoothly in public interest.” 11. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of another order issued by the Secretary (Judicial) to the Government of Nagaland dated 09.02.2021. This order was passed in pursuance to the directions contained in the order dated 18.11.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 217(K)/2019. The contents of the said order being relevant are reproduced herein under: “ GOVERNMENT of NAGALAND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & LAW NAGALAND:KOHIMA ORDER Dated Kohima the th Feb’ 2021 LAW/DC(J)ESTT-7/93 ::In reference to the Gauhati High Court Order Case No. W.P(C) No. 217(K)/2019 dated 18-11-2019 and as per retirement rule 24 of the Nagaland District Court Employees Service Rules, 2017, the earlier release Order No. LAW.DC(J)Esst- 7/93 dated 23.11.2019 in r/o Shri. Dietholic Chadi, Peshkar-cum- UDA under Principal District & Session Judge, Dimapur stands revoked. Sd/- (NINO IRALU),NJS Secretary (Judicial) to the Govt. of Nagaland LAW/DC(J)/ESTT-7/93 Dated Kohima the Feb’ 2021” 12. From a perusal of the above quoted order dated 09.02.2021, it would clearly show that the respondent No. 3 had issued an order whereby the order dated 23.11.2019 by which the husband of the petitioner was released and which was the subject matter of WP(C) No. 217(K)/2019 was revoked. In that view of the matter, the husband of the petitioner continued to remain in service. However, unfortunately the husband of the petitioner died in harness on 09.05.2022 while serving as the UDA-cum-Peshkar in the Court of the Principal District in Sessions Judge Dimapur, Nagaland. 13. In that view of the matter, the husband of the petitioner continued to remain in service. However, unfortunately the husband of the petitioner died in harness on 09.05.2022 while serving as the UDA-cum-Peshkar in the Court of the Principal District in Sessions Judge Dimapur, Nagaland. 13. At this stage it may not be out of place also to mention that the post of the UDA cum Assistant would come within the ambit of Class III or Group C service. The family pension papers of the petitioner who was the wife of Late Detholie Chadiwere forwarded to the respondent No. 6. However, the said pension papers were returned vide the communication dated 18.07.2023 by the Senior Accounts officer (Pension) of the respondent No. 6 which is the impugned communication. 14. A perusal of the said impugned communication would show that the Senior Accounts Officer (Pension) of the respondent No. 6 had remarked that on account of wrong fixation of the pay of the husband of the petitioner there was excess pay and allowances drawn w.e.f 01.04.2003 till 01.12.2018 and as such the excess pay and allowances drawn may be recovered and recovery statement for the same may be furnished. It was also mentioned that in terms with Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Act of 1991 which was amended vide the Nagaland Retirement from Public Employment (Second Amendment) Act, 2009 (for short, “the Amending Act of 2009”) which came into effect from 31.10.2009 a State Government Employee shall retire after completion of 35 (thirty five) years of service or attaining the age of 60 (sixty), whichever is earlier. However, as per the service book record, the husband of the petitioner was appointed as an LDA on 13.11.1984 and expired on 09.05.2022 after more than 37 (thirty seven) years of service and as such on account of overstay in service there would be a requirement of recovery on account of pay and allowance drawn during the overstay in service. It is also apparent from Clause 5 of the impugned communication wherein it was stated that overstayal in service requires condonation of the P&AR Department which was required to be submitted. It is also apparent from Clause 5 of the impugned communication wherein it was stated that overstayal in service requires condonation of the P&AR Department which was required to be submitted. In view of these objections, the file of the petitioner for family pension was returned to the Under Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Law and Justice for resubmission after meeting the queries pointed out for early settlement of the case. The petitioner upon making enquiries as regards the non-settlement of the family pension and came to learn about the impugned communication for which the present writ petition was filed on 15.02.2024. 15. This Court vide an order dated 19.02.2024 issued notice. The record reveals that the present writ petition was tagged along with a Contempt Proceedings being COP(Civil) No. 13/2021 by way of an administrative order of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. The learned Division Bench of this Court was taking up the instant writ petition along with the said Contempt Proceedings. It is however seen from the records that vide an order dated 21.08.2024, the instant writ petition was de-tagged from the Contempt Proceedings and there was a direction for listing of the present writ petition before the Single Bench of this Court. The record further reveals that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition. No affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the other respondents in spite of various opportunities being granted. At this stage, this Court finds it also relevant to observe that during the course of the hearing, attention was drawn to a Notification bearing No. LAW/JUD-1/2016 dated 04.03.2025 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Nagaland whereby upon approval by the Cabinet, the overstay in service was condoned of nine employees including the husband of the petitioner. The said Notification is quoted herein under: “ GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND LAW & JUSTICE DEPARTMENT NAGLAND:KOHIMA NOTIFICATION Kohima dated the 04th March 2025 NO.LAW/JUD-1/2016::: Consequent upon the amendment made to the Nagaland District Employees Service Rules, 2017 as notified in the Nagaland Gazette dated 26.02.2025, the following employees will retire from service with effect from 31.03.2025. There overstay in service is hereby condoned as per the approval of the Cabinet vide No. CAB-1/14/2023 dated 25.02.2025. Sl.No Name Date of Birth Date of entry into service 1 Smti. S. Asangla Ao, Assistant Superintendent (Dir) 29.03.1966 01.01.1987 2 Smti. There overstay in service is hereby condoned as per the approval of the Cabinet vide No. CAB-1/14/2023 dated 25.02.2025. Sl.No Name Date of Birth Date of entry into service 1 Smti. S. Asangla Ao, Assistant Superintendent (Dir) 29.03.1966 01.01.1987 2 Smti. Kethokhrulu Nyekha, UDA 13.01.1968 30.11.1987 3 Shri. Benthungo Ezung, UDA 18.12.1966 01.06.1988 4 Smti.Kevechelu Khesoh, UDA 24.09.1970 15.11.1988 5 Shri Nehumbemo Lotha, Peon 17.12.1965 07.11.1985 6 Smti. Tokheli Assumi, Typist 02.01.1968 28.06.1986 7 Smti. Doribeni Lotha, Typist 01.04.1967 01.09.1988 8 Shri. Mangyangsashi, Peon 01.06.1965 04.01.1986 9 Shri Nikheshe Sema, Driver 08.05.1965 06.12.1988 Sd/- (Y.KIKHETO SEMA) IAS Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland NO.LAW/JUD-1/2016::: Kohima dated the 04 March 2025” 16. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record. 17. From the materials on record, as discussed herein above and, more particularly, Rule 24 of the Rules of 2017 as it existed prior to 26.02.2025, the common order dated 25.08.2020 passed in WP(C) No. 192(K)/2018 and WP(C) No. 217(K)/2019 and the revocation of the order dated 23.11.2019 by which the husband of the petitioner was released vide the order dated 09.02.2021, the question of the husband of the petitioner having overstayed does not arise inasmuch as by virtue of Rule 24 of the Rules of 2017, the husband of the petitioner could continue to remain in service till he attained 60 (sixty) years. Further vide the Notification dated 04.03.2025, the overstay period of the husband of the petitioner had been condoned. Under such circumstances, the question of any objection on the part of the respondent No. 6 to finalize the family pension papers on account of overstay do no longer exist. 18. The question therefore remains is as to whether the objection on account of wrong fixation of the pay of the husband of the petitioner which led to excess payment can be an impediment to the finalization of the pension papers of the petitioner or for that matter would it be equitable on the part of the respondents to make any recovery from the entitlement of the petitioner at this stage. 19. From the materials on records, there is nothing discernable in spite of numerous opportunities being granted to the respondents that the fixation of the pay of the husband of the petitioner at Rs. 19. From the materials on records, there is nothing discernable in spite of numerous opportunities being granted to the respondents that the fixation of the pay of the husband of the petitioner at Rs. 5,100/- instead of Rs.4,815/- was at the instance of the husband of the petitioner or the husband of the petitioner had committed any fraud or misrepresentation in the such fixation of pay. 20. This Court at this stage finds it relevant to take note of some of the judgments of the Supreme Court as regards recovery on account of wrong fixation which led to excess payment. In the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 excess payment was sought to be recovered which was made to the appellants/teachers therein on account of mistake and wrong interpretation of the prevailing Bihar Nationalised Secondary School (Service Conditions) Rules, 1983. The Supreme Court held that the appellants therein cannot be held responsible for the excess amount so paid and as such, the recovery of excess payment should not be made, especially when those teachers have already retired. The Supreme Court observed that in general parlance, recovery is prohibited by Courts where there exists no misrepresentation of fraud on the part of the employee and when the excess payment has been made by applying a wrong interpretation/understanding of a rule or order. Paragraph No. 59 of the said judgment is reproduced herein under: “ 59 . Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter-affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the Rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellant teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be made.” 21. In the case of the State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 the Supreme Court examined the validity of an order passed by the State to recover the monetary gains wrongly extended to the beneficiary employees in excess of their entitlement without any fault or misrepresentation at the behest of the recipient. The Supreme Court considered situations of hardship caused to an employee, if recovery is directed to reimburse the employer and disallow the same, exempting the beneficiary employees from such recovery. In Paragraph No. 18 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court summarizes the few situations wherein recoveries by the employers would be impermissible in law. Paragraph No. 18 of the said judgment is reproduced herein below: “ 18 . It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover.” 22. From the above quoted paragraph of the said judgment, it is very clear that recovery from employees belonging to Class III and Class IV services (or Group C and Group D services) is impermissible in law. Further to that, recovery from retired employees or employees who are due to retire within 1 (one) year of the order of recovery is also not permissible. The Supreme Court also observed that recovery from employees where the excess payment has been made for a period of in excess of 5 (five) years before the order of recovery issued is also not permissible. Applying the said law to the present facts, it would be seen that the husband of the petitioner was serving in a Class III or Group C service being an UDA-cum-Peshkar; the husband of the petitioner had expired and any recovery so sought to be done from the wife would not be permissible. Further to that, from a perusal of the communication dated 18.07.2023, it would be seen that the excess payments which have been mentioned is for the period from 01.04.2003 till 01.12.2018 and the recovery which is sought to be made is on the basis of an communication dated 18.07.2023 whereby 5 (five) years have already exceeded. Under such circumstances, in all the 3 (three) eventualities the question of recovery from the dues, the petitioner is entitled to on the ground of excess payment, is not permissible. 23. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of another recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jogeswar Sahoo & Others Vs. The District Judge, Cuttack & Others reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 724 wherein the Supreme Court, after making a copious detail of the law declared by the Supreme Court observed that unless payments were made where on account of any fraud or misrepresentation by the employee, the question of recovery was not permissible. The District Judge, Cuttack & Others reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 724 wherein the Supreme Court, after making a copious detail of the law declared by the Supreme Court observed that unless payments were made where on account of any fraud or misrepresentation by the employee, the question of recovery was not permissible. Paragraph No. 11 of the said judgment is reproduced herein under: “11. In the case at hand, the appellants were working on the post of Stenographers when the subject illegal payment was made to them. It is not reflected in the record that such payment was made to the appellants on account of any fraud or misrepresentation by them. It seems, when the financial benefit was extended to the appellants by the District Judge, Cuttack, the same was subsequently not approved by the High Court which resulted in the subsequent order of recovery. It is also not in dispute that the payment was made in the year 2017 whereas the recovery was directed in the year 2023. However, in the meanwhile, the appellants have retired in the year 2020. It is also an admitted position that the appellants were not afforded any opportunity of hearing before issuing the order of recovery. The appellants having superannuated on a ministerial post of Stenographer were admittedly not holding any gazetted post as such applying the principle enunciated by this Court in the above quoted judgment, the recovery is found unsustainable.” 24. In view of the above law laid down by the Supreme Court and applying to the facts of the instant case, it is the opinion of this Court that the question of making any recovery from the dues, the petitioner is entitled to on account of incorrect fixation of the pay does not arise in the present facts. Accordingly, the instant writ petition therefore stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The objections raised in the impugned communication dated 18.07.2023 as regards excess pay drawn on account of overstay and wrong fixation of the pay of the husband of the petitioner are interfered with. (ii) The respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 6 are directed to forthwith take steps for finalization of the pension of the petitioner. This Court further takes note of the fact that since 09.05.2022, the petitioner had been deprived of her dues and almost 3 (three) years have passed by. (ii) The respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 6 are directed to forthwith take steps for finalization of the pension of the petitioner. This Court further takes note of the fact that since 09.05.2022, the petitioner had been deprived of her dues and almost 3 (three) years have passed by. Under such circumstances, the respondents herein and more particularly the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 6 are directed to complete the entire process of finalization of the pension of the petitioner within 3 (three) months from the date a certified copy of the instant judgment is served upon the said respondents. (iii) Taking into consideration that pension is not a bounty from the State but a valuable right of a person who is entitled to as held by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Deokinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330 , this Court directs the respondents to complete the entire process within the period of 3 (three) months as directed above and if there is failure, the same would result in payment of interest @ 9% per annum on the amount entitled by the petitioner from the date of expiry of the period granted herein above and such excess payment if required to be paid to the petitioner on account of accrual of interest would be recovered by the State from the erring Officials.