CWP (T) No. 16161/2008 11.03.2011 Present: Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the respondents It is not in dispute that petitioner was to retire on 30.6.2006 upon attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years. However, petitioner continued to work till 30.4.2007. Admittedly, for this period petitioner has received emoluments. It is not the case of the respondents that petitioner continued to be in employment due to any misrepresentation on his part. It is also not the case of the respondents that petitioner has not discharged his duties satisfactorily or had ever absented during this period. Affidavit filed by the respondents makes it clear that orders of superannuation could not be issued on 30.6.2006 for the reason that relevant notification was not received by their office in time. Consequently present petition needs to be allowed. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Shayam Babu vs. Union of India, (1994) 2, SCC 521, Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana, (1995) Supp. 1, SCC 18 & Syed Abdul Quadir vs. State of Bihar (2009) 3 SCC 475, no recovery can be effected from the petitioner for the period for which he has worked between 30.6.2006 till 30.4.2007. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of. March 11, 2011 ( Sanjay Karol ), (rana) Judge.