JUDGMENT M.H.S. Ansari, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge dated 1st February, 1995 as modified by order dated 23rd March, 1995 in Matter No. 3634 of 1994. 2. The petitioner was a Professor of Physiology in North Bengal Medical College. He attained the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years on 31st January, 1991 and was superannuated with effect from that date. The appellant/writ petitioner relying upon Ordinance 19 (1) of the University Statutes applied for re-employment. The respondent authorities, it appears, had re-employed the appellant/writ petitioner for two years. "3. For the third term, the re-employment was granted to the appellant/writ petitioner pursuant to an order of Court. The same is evident from the notification dated 6th July, 1994 which' states that the notification is issued in pursuance of the High Court's order passed on 26th November, 1993 and that the petitioner was re-employed on ad hoc basis, without prejudice, and subject to the result of the writ application submitted by him. 4. The learned Trial Judge has observed that when the writ application in question was moved on 15th December, 1994 and an order of status quo as regards the service of the writ petitioner was issued and the same was subsequently extended till 9th February, 1995 as none appeared on behalf of the respondents. The matter was thereafter directed to be placed for orders on 18th January, 1995. Again on the said date, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent authorities though they were duly served, the interim order was directed to continue for a further period of two weeks from that date and the writ application was directed to be placed for hearing. Even, at the hearing of the writ petition, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. 5. The learned Trial Judge disposed of the writ application directing the Executive Council of the University to consider the case of the re-employment of the writ petitioner for the fourth term i.e. from 31st January, 1995 to 31st January, 1996 in accordance with the proviso to clause 19 (1) of the Ordinance. Certain further directions have been issued for consideration of the recommendations of the Executive Council by the Director of Medical Education within time framed therein. 6. Certain further directions have been issued for consideration of the recommendations of the Executive Council by the Director of Medical Education within time framed therein. 6. The learned Trial Judge also directed the authorities to release the salary of the writ petitioner from 1st February, 1994 to July, 1994 which dates, however, have been corrected by the modification order dated 23rd March, 1995 to read as 1st February, 1993 to 31st July, 1994. The said direction was with the clarification that it would be open to the authorities to consider as to whether the writ petitioner has worked during the said period in the College in question. 7. The writ petitioner is the appellant before us and is aggrieved by the direction for consideration of the appellant's/petitioner's case for re-employment. It is the case of the appellant that a positive direction ought to have been issued by the learned Judge specially when despites service of notice, none had appeared on behalf of the respondents. 8. The second grievance of the writ petitioner/appellant is that a positive direction ought to have been issued for payment of the salary for the said period without the condition attached thereto as contained in the order of the learned Single Judge. 9. The third grievance of the appellant/writ petitioner is that the retiral benefits to which the writ petitioner/appellant is entitled to, no directions have been issued. 10. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge on either of the grounds one and two supra. 11. It is the Executive Council that has to consider the matter with regard to the re-employment of a Professor of the University beyond the age of 60 years and upon such consideration, the State Government is to pass appropriate orders. When a statutory authority is vested with the power then it is not appropriate for the Court to issue directions assuming the role of the statutory authority. 12. As regards the direction for release of salary, the learned Judge was justified in clarifying the position as to the ascertainment by the respondent authorities whether the writ petitioner/appellant had in fact: worked in the College during the period in question. The reason for the same is that ad hoc appointment was given to the petitioner only on 6th July, 1994 pursuant to the order of the Court dated 26th November, 1993. 13. The reason for the same is that ad hoc appointment was given to the petitioner only on 6th July, 1994 pursuant to the order of the Court dated 26th November, 1993. 13. However, with regard to payment of retiral benefits, there can be no dispute that the writ petitioner/appellant having superannuated on 31st January, 1991 and having also crossed the age of 65 years, he is entitled to the retiral benefits available to him in law. 14. Accordingly, a direction shall issue to the respondent authorities to arrange for settlement of the retiral benefits as may be due to the writ petitioner/appellant and to pay the same expeditiously and preferably within four (4) months from the date of communication of a copy of this order. 15. The writ application is accordingly allowed in part and to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. S.B. Sinha, A.C.J.: I agree. Writ application allowed in part without costs.