Judgment G. C. Bharuka, Aftab Alam, JJ. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 31-12-1990, 31-12-1990 and 12-3-1991 (Annexures-4, 5 and 7 respectively) by which it has been communicated to the petitioner that even after his superannuation on 31-1-1990 he has drawn his salary as Headmaster of the Government Half time Weaving School, Mogal Kuan, Sohasarai (Nalanda) purporting to act of his own on the said post illegally and mala fidely. 2. It is not in dispute the according to service conditions,the petitioner had superannuated on 31-1-1990 and subsequent to superannuation no order either extending his service or granting any re-employment to him was passed by the Government or any other competent authority. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner the impugned order cannot be sustained in law because he had continued to work on the post in question on oral instructions of respondent No.3, the General manager, District Industries Centre. On the other hand, the learned government Advocate, in support of the impugned orders, has drawn our attention to the Government directives contained in Memo No.1600 dated 1-4-1991 of the Finance Department (Annexure b-3 ). 3. It appears that a tendency had been growing among the Government servants to continue to work unauthorisedly on the post held by them on the date of superannuation even after retirement intentionally and keep drawing salary without having any order of re-employment or extension of service in their favour. To undo such illegal acts, by referring to earlier instructions, it was again reiterated in Paragraph 3 the directives (Annexure b-3) to the following effect: "in the above background, the Government after seriously considering, has again decided that if formal order relating the extension of service or re-employment is not issued in accordance with the rules through Finance Department after obtaining concurrence of the Council of Ministers by the date of retirement, then the retiring Government servant will automatically get relieved. If they work after retirement, then they will be deemed to be at fault. Their acts will be deemed to be at unauthorised and they will not be entitled to any payment for such unauthorised work. " 4. If they work after retirement, then they will be deemed to be at fault. Their acts will be deemed to be at unauthorised and they will not be entitled to any payment for such unauthorised work. " 4. Therefore, in the present case as to facts stand the petitioner had no authority to continue on the post in question and draw salary even applying the principles governing the service jurisprudence, subsequent to the date of retirement, the relationship master and servant stands severed and thereafter the retired employee cannot claim any salary even if he voluntarily renders any service. 5. We are clearly of the view that only because the petitioner was un-authorisedly discharging the functions even subsequent to his retirement, he cannot claim any relief even on equitable principles because his actions cannot be said to be bona fide. It is well settled that the person claiming equity must come with clean hands and the person perpetuating mala fides or involving in illegal acts cannot seek any remedy on equitable considerations. 6. In the above view of the matter, is our opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under writ Jurisdiction by this Court. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Application dismissed.