H. L. DATTU, J. ( 1 ) A retired senior laboratory assistant, retired from the services of the university of agricultural sciences, Bangalore, is before this court inter alia seeking the following reliefs. They are: a. For a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to pay to the petitioner dcrg amounts, which is withheld by the accountant general in karnataka, Bangalore. b. For a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to settle his pensionary claims taking into account that the petitioner's age of retirement is at 60 years. c. For a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to pay interest at the rate of 18% on the amounts due to the petitioner towards terminal benefits from 1-7-1993 till the date of actual payment. ( 2 ) FACTS in extenso requires to be noticed. They are as under: petitioner was working as a senior laboratory assistant in b. s. and h. College, which is affiliated to the university of agricultural sciences, Bangalore-first respondent herein. His date of birth is entered as 16-6-1933 in the service register maintained by the university. According to petitioner, as a government employee, he should have retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 30-6-1991. But since he opted to serve in the university of agricultural sciences, according to him, he could continue to work till the age of 60 years and he would retire on 30-6-1993 after attaining the age of 60 years or the age of superannuation. ( 3 ) BY an order dated 28-12-1993, the respondent-university had communicated to the petitioner that his date of birth as entered in the service register is 16-6-1936 and the actual date of retirement on attaining the age of superannuation would be 16-6-1994 and because he opted to serve in the university of agricultural sciences and since the actual date of retirement on superannuation falls in the middle of the month, petitioner would retire on 30-6-1994. Pursuant to the aforesaid communication, it appears, petitioner continued to work in the university as senior laboratory assistant till November 1994. ( 4 ) ON 16-8-1994, the comptroller of the respondent-university had submitted the papers relating to the pensionary claims of the petitioner to the office of the accountant general, Bangalore. In that, it was indicated that petitioner retired from government service on attaining the age of superannuation i. e. , w. e. f. 30-6-1994. ( 4 ) ON 16-8-1994, the comptroller of the respondent-university had submitted the papers relating to the pensionary claims of the petitioner to the office of the accountant general, Bangalore. In that, it was indicated that petitioner retired from government service on attaining the age of superannuation i. e. , w. e. f. 30-6-1994. Along with that letter, the comptroller had enclosed the formal application filed by the petitioner for grant of pension and gratuity, an application in form 7 for pension, dcrg and family pension, identification of marks, height, the service register, etc. It was also indicated in the letter by the comptroller of the university that since the petitioner had opted to the government order dated 6-2-1981, the pensionary claims of the petitioner should be released after he attains the age of 60 years i. e. , w. e. f. 1-7-1996. ( 5 ) AFTER receipt of such communication from the comptroller of respondent- university, the accounts officer by his letter dated 26-9-1994 had asked for certain clarification and reasons for extending the service of the petitioner till 30-6-1994 though he should have been retired on 30-6-1991 in view of his date of birth as entered in the service registers maintained by the university. Pursuant to such request letter of clarification, the university by its order dated 23-11-1994 informs the petitioner that he is deemed to have been retired from government service w. e. f. 30-6-1991 and from the university service w. e. f. 30-6-1993 and further, he is deemed to have been relieved from service w. e. f. 30-6-1993 afternoon. ( 6 ) SINCE the university and the 4th respondent had not released the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner, he had made a representation dated 29-12-1994 requesting the respondent-authorities to release the terminal benefits at the earliest. Pursuant to the request so made, the officer of the accountant general, issues an order dated 29-3-1995 fixing the pension payable to the petitioner but insofar as dcrg and computed value of pension is concerned, the same was withheld for want of information regarding the nature of recovery and consent from the pensioner. After receipt of such information, petitioner once again makes a request to release the withheld dcrg and cvp amount. After receipt of such information, petitioner once again makes a request to release the withheld dcrg and cvp amount. In response to this requtest, the administrative officer of the university by its note dated 20-6-1995, informs the petitioner that the pensionary benefits sanctioned is pending in accountant general's office for want of consent from him to recover excess salary paid and further he is directed to send his consent letter for recovery of the excess salary to their office to settle the pensionary benefits. Aggrieved by this communication and the inaction of the authorities in not settling his terminal benefits, petitioner is before this court for the reliefs indicated by me earlier. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel Sri jagadeesh, appearing for the petitioner contends before this court that the respondent-authorities could not have withheld the dcrg and cvp amounts payable to the petitioner after petitioner retired from service. The learned counsel adds, since the date of birth of the petitioner is 16-6-1933, respondents ought to have retired the petitioner on 30-6-1993 on attaining the age of superannuation and respondents assuming the wrong date of birth continued the petitioner in service and retired him only on 30-6-1994 and for this omission, petitioner was in no way responsible and therefore, submits that since the petitioner has worked during this period he is entitled to the salary paid to him by the university and respondents are not justified in withholding dcrg and cvp amounts payable to the petitioner. Therefore, it is stated that the action of the university is not only arbitrary but wholly unfair and unjust. In support of this contention, he draws my attention to Rule 215 (3) (b) of Karnataka civil service rules. ( 8 ) NEXTLY, the learned counsel contends that petitioner at no point of time had made a request to the university to extend his service and it was for the university to have retired him from service on 30-6-1991 and since he had opted for the government order dated 6-2-1981, they should have retired him from service on 30-6-1993 knowing fully well that his actual date of birth as entered in the service register is 16-6-1933. the learned counsel further submits, for no fault of the petitioner, the respondent-authorities cannot recover the excess salary paid to the petitioner for the periods 30-6-1993 till 30-11-1994. the learned counsel further submits, for no fault of the petitioner, the respondent-authorities cannot recover the excess salary paid to the petitioner for the periods 30-6-1993 till 30-11-1994. Therefore, the learned counsel requests that an appropriate direction should be issued to the university and to respondent 4 to release the dcrg and cvp amounts withheld by them and further to restrain the university from recovering any excess amounts paid to the petitioner for the reason petitioner had worked during the periods 30-6-1993 till 30-11-1994. ( 9 ) SRI arun, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-university justifies the impugned communication dated 20-6-1995 issued by the university. In support of his stand, the learned counsel draws my attention to the observations made by the apex court in the case of radha kishun v union of India and others. ( 10 ) HAVING heard the learned counsels for the parties to the lis, the issues that requires to be considered and decided by this court are: i. Whether the respondent-university could have withheld the dcrg and commuted value of pension payable to the petitioner after his retirement from service? ii. Whether the order made by the university dated 20-6-1995 requesting the petitioner to furnish his consent letter to recover excess salary paid to him for the periods 30-6-1993 to 30-11-1994 is proper and justifiable? iii. What order? ( 11 ) RE. Contention i: gratuity is a retiral benefit paid to an employee in consideration of the past services rendered. It is paid normally once on retirement of the employee but now it is paid even if the employee resigned or voluntarily retired from service. As in the case of pension, withholding of gratuity will only be permissible if there is a specific Rule authorising the employer to do so. Even such withholding can be done only after complying with the principles of natural justice. in the instant case, the learned counsel has not pointed out any rule, regulation or statute which empowers the respondent-university to withhold gratuity and cvp amount and in the absence of such specific Rule, in my opinion, the respondent-university could not have informed the accounts officer of the accountant general to withhold the aforesaid amounts. Therefore, in my opinion, the action of the university in re- questing the accounts officer of the accountant general is wholly illegal and without authority of law. Therefore, in my opinion, the action of the university in re- questing the accounts officer of the accountant general is wholly illegal and without authority of law. ( 12 ) THE next question that requires to be considered is whether the university was justified in directing the pensioner to send his consent letter for recovery of excess salary paid for the periods 30-6-1993 till he was actually relieved from service. In my opinion, in view of the law declared by the apex court in radha kishun's case, supra, petitioner is not entitled to the salary for the aforesaid period and therefore, there is nothing like a consent that should be given by the petitioner to recover the excess salary paid. ( 13 ) THE factual matrix before the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision was, petitioner was working in the telecommunication department, government of india. He was to retire from service on 31-5-1991 but he remained in office till 31-5-1994 enjoying all the benefits of service. realising the mistake in continuing him even after 31-5-1991 and realising that they have paid something more than what the official was entitled to, recovery proceedings had been initiated by the telecommunication department. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the official had iiled an application before the tribunal. The tribunal was pleased to reject the application. Aggrieved by the said Order, the official had approached the Supreme Court in a special leave petition. While deciding the issues in the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:"3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner has worked during the period, he is entitled to the payment of the pay and allowances from 1-6-1991 to 26-6-1994 and that he is also entitled to the payment of provisional provision, death-cum-retirement gratuity, leave encashment, commutation of pension amount, gpf money and the amount deposited under cghs on the plea that he retired from service on 31-5-1994. We are aghast to notice the boldness with which it is claimed that he is entitled to all the benefits with effect from the above said date when admittedly he was to retire on 31-5-1991. It would be an obvious case of absolute irresponsibility on the part of the officer concerned in the establishment in the Section concerned for not taking any action to have the petitioner retired from service on his attaining superannuation. It would be an obvious case of absolute irresponsibility on the part of the officer concerned in the establishment in the Section concerned for not taking any action to have the petitioner retired from service on his attaining superannuation. It is true that the petitioner worked during that period, but when he is not to continue to be in service as per law, he has no right to claim the salary etc. It is not the case that he was re-employed in the public interest, after attaining superannuation. Under these circumstances , we do not find any illegality in the action taken by the authorities in refusing to grant the benefits. 4. It is then contended that the petitioner would have conveniently secured gainful employment elsewhere and having worked, he cannot be denied of the legitimate salary to which he is entitled. though the argument is alluring, we cannot accept the contention and give legitimacy to the illegal action taken by the authorities. If the contention is given acceptance, it would be field day for manipulation with impunity and one would get away on the plea of equity and misplaced sympathy. It cannot and should not be given countenance. 5. Under those circumstances, we dismiss the petition with a direction to the government of India to take appropriate disciplinary action against all the persons concerned for their deliberate dereliction of duty in not ensuring the petitioner's retirement on his attaining the age of superannuation". ( 14 ) THE factual situation in the instant case is more or less identical with the issues raised and considered by the apex court. In the instant case, petitioner was to retire from service on 30-6-1993. The respondent university however continued him in service till 30-11-1994. Petitioner did enjoy all the benefits of service. After his retirement from service, respondent-authorities intend to recover the excess salary paid to the petitioner by their order dated 20-6-1995. In my opinion, in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in radha kishun's case, supra, the university is entitled to recover the excess salary paid to the petitioner for the periods 30-6-1993 to 30-11-1994. But that can be done only by resorting to appropriate recovery proceedings but not by way of withholding dcrg and cvp amounts. In my opinion, in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in radha kishun's case, supra, the university is entitled to recover the excess salary paid to the petitioner for the periods 30-6-1993 to 30-11-1994. But that can be done only by resorting to appropriate recovery proceedings but not by way of withholding dcrg and cvp amounts. ( 15 ) INSOFAR as second prayer is concerned, the learned counsel did not address any arguments at the time of hearing of the petition. Therefore, the same is not considered. ( 16 ) FOR the reasons stated, writ petition is disposed off as under:i. The respondent-university is perfectly justified in passing an order dated 20-6-1995 to recover excess salary paid to the petitioner for the periods 30-6-1993 to 30-11-1994. ii. It is declared that the university authorities are not entitled to deduct the excess salary paid to the petitioner from his dcrg and cvp claims. iii. The respondent-authorities shall settle the dcrg and cvp claims of the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this court's order. iv. The university authorities are at liberty to recover the excess salary paid to the petitioner in accordance with law pursuant to their order dated 20-6-1995. ( 17 ) WITH these observations and directions, writ petition is disposed off. Ordered accordingly. --- *** --- .