JUDGMENT D.P.S. Chauhan, J. - In the present writ petition, the controversy involved is regarding the age of superannuation of the petitioner and also regarding the recovery of the amount paid to him subsequent to the age of superannuation as mentioned in the service record of the petitioner. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed as constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police on 8 September 1947 and at that time, as per declaration given by him, his age was recorded as 18 years. Subsequently, on the basis of the report from a Civil Surgeon, the age of the petitioner was entered in the service book as 24 years. The petitioner was promoted as head constable in the year 1967 and thereafter as Assistant Sub-Inspector in the year 1970. The petitioner having come to know about his age in the service book represented departmentally. But his prayer was turned down regarding correction of his age in the service book, which he claimed to be 1 July 1931. 3. The petitioner approached Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal by means of Claim Petition No. 421/5/81 in this regard, which was ultimately dismissed on 6 March 1984, maintains g the age of the petitioner as recorded in the service book. 4. The petitioner was to retire on 16 March 1981, which date was extended up to 25 March 1981. The petitioner on account of interim orders granted by the Services Tribunal in the aforesaid claim petition on 7 November 1981 and 17 November 1981, continued in service. The order of the Services Tribunal, dated 17 November 1981, was that the stay order already granted shall continue till further orders. 5. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made two fold submissions. Firstly, he challenged that the order of services Tribunal is not according to law as the Tribunal has not recorded the proper finding regarding the date of birth of the petitioner. I am not inclined to enter into this controversy as the Services Tribunal has already recorded a clear finding and there is no question of interference in the matter so far as the age of superannuation of the petitioner, as entered in the service book, is concerned. I am not inclined to enter into this controversy as the Services Tribunal has already recorded a clear finding and there is no question of interference in the matter so far as the age of superannuation of the petitioner, as entered in the service book, is concerned. The second submission advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner continued in service on account of the interim orders granted by the Services Tribunal as aforesaid and work was also taken from him, but the department by order, dated 23 March 1984, directed that amount paid during the continuance of interim orders after 25 March 1981, which was the exact date of superannuation, shall be deducted from the pension and gratuity payable to him. The objection is that such direction is unsustainable in the eye of law, as the petitioner has continued in service in pursuance of the order of the Services Tribunal and the department accepted that order without challenging in the High Court and took work from the petitioner and the department cannot ask for recovery of such amount because payment has been made to the petitioner on account of work done by him. 7. This submission of the counsel for petitioner has got substance. Firstly, payment of salary was the obligation on the department which allowed the petitioner to continue in service after age of superannuation as the interim orders passed by the Services Tribunal were accepted by the department and secondly, the department took work from the petitioner and whatever paid to the petitioner was not any concession or loan, but was only the payment for the work from the petitioner. If such amount is allowed to be deducted from the pension and gratuity then it would be in violation of Article 23 of the Constitution. 8. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed. I accordingly direct that the respondents shall not make any recovery from the petitioner regarding aforesaid payment of salary and also rent paid to him either from his pension, gratuity, general provident fund or otherwise. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to state as to whether any deduction has been made or not. I accordingly direct that the respondents shall not make any recovery from the petitioner regarding aforesaid payment of salary and also rent paid to him either from his pension, gratuity, general provident fund or otherwise. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to state as to whether any deduction has been made or not. However, if any such amount is deducted ; then it shall be the duty of the State Government to return back the amount so deducted within two months to the petitioner from the date of filing of the certified copy of this order along with an application in this regard. There will be no order as to costs.