WP(C) 4916/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I.A. ANSARI Heard Ms. F. Begum, learned counsel, for the petitioner, and Ms. A. Verm a, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 and 5. Heard also Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel, for the respondent Nos.3 and 4. The petitioner was a regular Grade-IV employee under the establishment of respon dent No.2, namely, Superintendent, Guwahati Medical College and Hospital, Guwaha ti. While the petitioner was working, he was intimated by his establishment by a letter, dated 16.06.2008, that the petitioner would retire, on superannuation, on 31.12.2008. The petitioner was accordingly relieved from service, on superann uation, on 31.12.2008, as had been intimated by him by the respondent No.2 by hi s letter, dated 16.06.2008. While the petitioner’s case for payment of pensionar y dues was pending, respondent No.4, namely, Senior Accountant Officer, Office o f the Accountant General (A&E), Guwahati, addressing to the respondent No.2, iss ued a letter to the effect that the date of birth of the petitioner being 01.01. 1948, the petitioner ought to have been retired, on superannuation, on 31.12.200 7, and that he had been wrongly allowed to work till 31.12.2008 as indicated her einbefore. By a letter, bearing Memo No.1/GPO No.101167009/D/3050, issued by the respondent No.4, respondent No.5, namely, Treasury Officer, Kamrup Treasury, Kamrup, was d irected to recover, from the dues of the petitioner, a sum of Rs.1,03,954/- on t he ground that the petitioner had over stayed, though he ought to have retired o n 31.12.2007. By filing this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, th e petitioner has, now, put to challenge the letter aforementioned issued by the respondent No.4 seeking to get the same set aside and quashed with further direc tion to the respondents not to recover the amount, which is sought to be recover ed from the petitioner. While defending the decision to deduct the sum of Rs.1,03,954/- from the dues of the petitioner, respondent No.2 has not disputed the fact that by letter, dated 16.08.2008, aforementioned, respondent No.2 had intimated the petitioner that h e would retire, on superannuation, on 31.12.2008. What the respondent No.2, howe ver, contends is that since the petitioner had the knowledge as to when he was t o retire, he ought to have informed the respondent No.2 so that the mistake coul d be corrected. There can be no dispute that what the petitioner has done is unbecoming on the p art of a public servant. The fact, however, remains that services of the petitio ner have been realized by the respondents from 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2008 and havi ng realized the services from the petitioner, his dues cannot be deducted. If, h owever, the petitioner has played mischief, such other legal recourse, as permis sible in law, may be taken by the respondents, but so far as recovery of the mon ey, as indicated hereinbefore, is concerned, the same cannot be permitted in law . Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justic e, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents not to ma ke deduction of Rs.1,03,954/- from the pension and other service benefits of the petitioner.