WP(C) 1528/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE IA ANSARI JUDGEMENT AND ORDER The petitioner, having been appointed as Lower Division Assistant (in sh ort, ’LDA’), in the year 1981, in the Directorate of Panchayat and Rural Develop ment, Government of Assam, came to be transferred to the District Rural Developm ent Agency (in short, ’DRDA’), at Dhubri. The petitioner was promoted to the pos t of UDA, in the office of the DRDA, Dhubri, in the year 1986. It was in the yea r 1993 that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Assistant in the sai d establishment and, thereafter, he was transferred, in the said capacity, to DR DA, Nalbari. While the petitioner was still working as Head Assistant, DRDA, Nal bari, an order was issued, on 15-12-2010, by the respondent No. 3, namely, Proje ct Director, DRDA, Nalbari, stating to the effect, inter alia, that the petition er was to retire, on superannuation, on 31-07-2010, and the petitioner has accor dingly been released with effect from 31-07-2010. 2. Responding to the order, dated 31-07-2010, aforementioned, the petitione r made a representation, dated 21-12-2010, addressed to the respondent No. 3, wh erein he did not dispute the fact that he was to superannuate on 31-07-2010, but he contended that since he had served till 15-12-2010, he shall be paid salary up to the month of December, 2010. The said representation, 21-12-2010, was foll owed by another representation, dated 27-01-2011, addressed to the respondent No . 2, namely, Deputy Commissioner and Executive Director, DRDA, Nalbari, seeking the same relief, namely, payment of salary upto the month of December, 2010. All eging that he ought to have been paid the salary upto the month of December, 201 0, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, under Article 226, seeking appro priate direction to be issued to the respondents to pay to the petitioner salary upto the month of December, 2010. 3. I have heard Mr. MA Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. BJ Ghosh, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 4. While considering the present writ petition, it needs to be noted that t he fact that the petitioner was to retire, on superannuation, in ordinary course , on 31-07-2010, is not in dispute. The question is as to whether the petitioner shall be directed to be paid his salary upto the end of the month of December, 2010. While considering this question, it needs to be noted that the petitioner went on medical leave with effect from 01-07-2010 and remained on medical leave till 30-09-2010, the medical leave having been granted to the petitioner by orde r, dated 16-10-2010, passed by the respondents concerned, pursuant to the petiti oner’s own application seeking such leave. 5. There is considerable force in the submissions, made on behalf of the re spondents, that the petitioner knew, in his capacity as Head Assistant, that his date of retirement was 31-07-2010 and yet he opted to remain on medical leave t ill 30-09-2010. This apart, what transpires from the record is that the petition er continued to hold the post of Head Assistant until the time, his illegal cont inuation, as Head Assistant, was detected by the person, who came to discharge, temporarily, the function of the Head Assistant during the said period of leave of the petitioner. 6. Situated thus, it becomes clear that the petitioner’s act in remaining i n service was not an innocent act. Far from being innocent, his conduct was frau dulent in nature. No wonder, therefore, that the petitioner has not challenged t hat he was to superannuate on 31-07-2010 and he could not have remained in servi ce longer than his date of retirement. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents have realized the service from the petitioner; rather, it w as the petitioner, who had opted to work by playing fraud on the respondents. Th e petitioner has, admittedly, been paid his salary upto the month of August. Thu s, the petitioner has been paid one month’s salary more than what he ought to ha ve received and that too, without working. 7. Invoking of extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court, under Article 226, in order to become beneficiary of a fraudulent act is impermissible. The r elief, which is granted by the High Court, in exercise of its power under Articl e 226, is substantially equitable in nature and a person, such as, the petitione r, who comes to the Court with unclean hands, cannot be protected by terming his service as having been exploited by the State respondents. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of Nagal and PWD Field Workers Association -vs- State of Nagaland and ors, reported in 20 10 (5) GLT 506, for the purpose of claiming salary and allowances upto the month of December. Suffice it to point out in this regard that the case of Nagaland PWD Field Workers Association (supra) referred to, and relied upon, the case of Col. B. J. Akkara (Retd.) vs Govt. of India reported in (2006) 11 SCC 709, where in a process had been initiated for recovery of the excess payment, which had be en made to the employee concerned and the Supreme Court inferred that it was not possible to rule out that the petitioners had innocently received excess paymen t. Similarly, in Nagaland PWD Field Workers Association (supra), the petitioners were paid excess amounts due to wrong fixation of their pay. It was in such cir cumstances, where innocence of the petitioners in receiving excess payment could not have been ruled out that this Court directed that no recovery shall be made from the petitioners in Nagaland PWD Field Workers Association (supra). To the case at hand, the decisions, in of Col. B. J. Akkara (Retd.) (supra) as well as Nagaland PWD Field Workers Association (supra), have absolutely no application. The petitioner has remained, voluntarily, on medical leave from 01-07-2010 to 30 -09-2010, though his (petitioner’s) continuation, in service, with effect from 0 1-08-2010, was wholly illegal. The petitioner has, however, received the salary for the month of August, 2010, without having worked during the said period and without being legally entitled to the leave from 01-08-2010 upto 30-09-2010. 8. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this Court do es not find that the petitioner has been able to make out any case warranting th is Court’s interference, in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Ar ticle 226, with the impugned order nor has the petitioner been able to make out any case for issuing any direction to the respondents to make available to the petitioner his salary for the months of September, October, November, and Decemb er, 2010. The petitioner, having played fraud on the State, cannot be allowed to become beneficiary of his own fraud. 9. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this writ petition fails an d the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 10. Though this Court, for a moment considered imposing heavy cost on the pe titioner, it refrains from imposing cost on the petitioner, because of the fact that the petitioner stands already retired on superannuation.