JUDGMENT : Special leave granted. 2. The respondent became due for retirement from Government service with effect from 30 November 1990 on completion of 58 years of age. He immediately on receipt of notice of retirement, dated 17 July 1990. tiled a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow contending that he was entitled to continue in service till he attained the age of 60 years and obtained an interim order for his continuance in service. After remaining in service under the interim orders of the Court till he attained the age of 60 years the High Court allowed the petition to be disposed of as in fructuous without the issue whether his age of retirement was 58 years or 60 years being judicially adjudicated upon. A direction was also obtained or payment of pensionary benefits. When the State challenged the said order in appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed it on the ground that the Stale had no reason or cause to file the appeal. It further observed that all that the Stale has to do was to act in accordance with the rules in the matter of providing pensionary benefits to the incumbent. It dismissed the appeal. Hence this appeal by special leave. 3. We are indeed surprised that in the first place the learned Single Judge should have disposed of the matter holding that the writ petition had become in fructuous on the respondent herein attaining the age of 60 years. The High Court should have realised that he had reaped the benefit of an extended service of two years, under an interim order of the High Court. The High Court should, therefore, have considered whether he deserved that benefit or did not deserve it as per the rules. If he did not deserve it the High Court ought to the recorded a finding in that behalf and should also have directed him to refund the benefit that he had received by way of undeserved continuance in service. Instead the High Court disposed of the matter as having become in fructuous and the Division Bench even found fault with the State for having preferred an appeal against that order. Instead the High Court disposed of the matter as having become in fructuous and the Division Bench even found fault with the State for having preferred an appeal against that order. The High Court also overlooked the fact that for the purpose of assessing the re-trial benefit it would be required to go into the question whether the age of retirement was 60 years or 58 years. Therefore, the issue having been left open, even if the State works out the pensionary benefits on the premise that the age of retirement was 58 years since its order of retirement, dated 17 July 1990, had not been quashed, there would be a second round of litigation questioning the fixation of re-trial benefits. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court was wrong in disposing of the writ petition and thereafter dismissing the appeal filed by the State Government. 4. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench and remit the matter to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law. We may also make it clear that if the High Court comes to the conclusion that the age of retirement was correctly determined by the State Government as 58 years the High Court will deduct the undeserved benefit which the respondent reaped by continuance in service for two years beyond the age of retirement of 58 years and deduct the salary an allowances from the terminal benefits which the respondent would be entitled to and also make a specific direction in that behalf at the time of fixation of pensionary benefits. It is time that such an action is taken to deter people from questioning the age of retirement or date of birth at belated stages otherwise that tendency to bring such cases and reap the benefit under interim order will not be controlled. No order as to costs.