IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16342 of 2004 Ram Nath Singh S/o Late Yamuna Singh resident of village Bindawel PO Badaram PS Hussainganj Dist. Siwan Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Siwan 3. Deputy Collector, Nazarat Siwan 4. The District Establishment Committee, Siwan 5. The Block Development Officer, Barhariya Dist. Siwan Respondents ----------- 03/ 11/08/2010 The background to the institution of the present case is socalled confusion in the date of retirement of the petitioner. Whether petitioner ought to have retired on the basis of the date of birth given in the panel before his regularization or date of birth given in the service book at the time of regularization which allowed the petitioner to continue in service till 31.08.2004 is the issue before the court. Petitioner approached the High Court initially seeking direction upon the respondents to make correction of date of birth in his service book and be allowed to continue in service on the basis of his actual date of birth which he claims as 07.01.1956 and not 07.01.1946. However, in view of the materials and evidence brought on record by the respondents in their counter affidavit, counsel for the petitioner has given up the issue of fixation of date of birth specially in light of the application made by him to the respondent authorities on 27.07.1998 which is annexure B to the counter affidavit. The issue now is the demand made on the petitioner for refund for a sum of Rs 31,457/- on account of salary paid to the petitioner for the period 01.02.2004 to 31.08.2004. Submission of the - 2 - counsel is that since petitioner had worked on the post for this period and at no point of time he was told by the respondents that he had to superannuate on a particular date the amount ought not to be recovered. In normal course of things the date of superannuation of an employee is well known to him but since there seems to be some confusion on this score and the petitioner was never told of the date when he was to superannuate and he continued to work on the post till 31.08.2004 he had some right to claim salary for the work done by him since no person can be expected to work gra-tis more so when he is an employee under the State. Prayer of the petitioner for quashing of Annexure 6 dated 08.12.2004 to the extent is allowed. Annexure 6 is quashed but so far date of superannuation is concerned, no interference is warranted in view of Annexure B to the counter affidavit. shahid (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)