ANTONY DOMINIC , J.
The respondents in W.P.(C)No.29654/2010 are the appellants. The 1st respondent herein filed the Writ Petition challenging the recovery proceedings initiated against her based on an audit objection. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge interfered with the matter and allowed the Writ Petition. It is this judgment, which is challenged before us.
2. From the pleadings itself, it is evident that the respondent had retired from service as early as on 31.3.2011. There is also no case for the appellants that the 1st respondent had contributed to the mistake in any manner. Therefore, if at this distance of time any right for recovery is recognised, that will cause undue hardship to a retired Government employee, W.A.No.1952/11 -2-
who is not responsible for the mistake pleaded against her. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal.
The Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE dsn Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE