1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.A.(MD)No.687 of 2011 1.The Tahsildar, Thirumangalam Taluk,Madurai District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti, Madurai District. 3.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai-20. ...Appellants Vs. M.Paulsamy @ Muthiah Thevar ...Respondent Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against the order dated 29.07.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.11468 of 2005. Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.11468 of 2005 Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent in Na. Ka. No. 3839/2005/m1/dated: 24.10.2005 and quash the same. For Appellant : Mr.K.Mahendran, Spl.G.P. JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.JYOTHIMANI,J.) This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.11468 of 2005 dated 29.07.2010 filed by the respondent, challenging the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti, Madurai / 2nd appellant passing the order of recovery against the pensionary benefits of the respondent for the excess period of work stated to have been rendered by him beyond the period to which he is eligible based on his date of birth. 2.Admittedly, the respondent’s date of birth was entered in the service register as 01.07.1946 and based on that, he has also served till the date of attaining superannuation and he has also retired from service. It was thereafter, the appellants came to know from the claim made by the respondent under the provident fund that the correct date of birth of the respondent is as 01.07.1941 and it was based on that, the recovery order came to be passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, which the learned Single Judge in our view, correctly has held that the respondent having served the said period, has earned the wages and therefore, there is no question of recovery. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( T and P ) /TRUE COPY/ nbj SUB ASST REGISTRAR TO: 1.The Tahsildar, Thirumangalam Taluk,Madurai District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti, Madurai District. 3.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai-20. 1CC TO MR. M. SENTHIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE, SR: 32187 W.A.(MD)No.687 of 2011 20.09.2011 DM:2011:OCTOBER:10:1P;5C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/