amounts were recovered from the pensionary benefits of her clients, the University understood that such action was wrong and therefore, issued Ext.P4 order, acceding to refund the same to them, also for the reason that the Audit Objections had already been waived by then. She alleged that, however, when her clients approached the University for the amounts involved, they have now been told, through Ext.P5 in all cases, that another Audit Objection has been raised by the State Audit Department and that the explanation of the University is pending their consideration. Smt.M.Isha, therefore, prayed that the University be directed to act as per Ext.P4 in all these cases and to refund the eligible amounts to her clients, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court, particularly because the issue has been squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & others [(2015) 4 SCC 334], since her clients are all low- paid employees, who have now retired and the benefits sought to be recovered are ones they received more than a decade ago without any allegation of misrepresentation or fraud being attributed to them. She concluded her submissions by saying that, in any event, no such recovery could have been possible, because there was no
