Judgment 1. Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has preferred this writ application for a direction to the respondents to pay all his post retiral benefits. The only dispute which requires decision of this court is whether the decision of the respondents as evidenced by paragraph-19 of the counter affidavit of respondent nos, 2, 4 and 8 and annexure-P to their supplementary counter affidavit to deduct the salary paid to the petitioner since April, 1994 to June 96 is correct or not. 3. There is no dispute that as per service record the petitioner was required to superannuate on 30th April, 1994. He was allowed to continue in service till 11.7.1996 due to inaction on the part of the concerned authority and hence he received salary till 30th June, 1996. As per counter affidavit of respondent nos. 2, 4 and 8 there is already a decision taken by the Agriculture Department to which the petitioner belonged that the salary paid to him for the aforesaid period when he was not entitled to be in service should be realised. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a statement in the counter affidavit of respondent no. 6, the Joint Secretary, Department of Agriculture to submit that a request has been made to the Managing Director, Marketing Board where the petitioner was working on deputation at the time of retirement not to recover the salary paid to him for the extra period he served. 4. The law relating to aforesaid controvery is settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Radha Krishna V/s. Union of India, reported in 1997 (2) PLJR (S.C.) 129. According to the said decision the plea on behalf of such an employee that he should not be denied the legitimate salary for period during which he had actuafly remained in service should not be accepted as acceptance of such plea will encourage manipulation with impunity. In that case the Supreme Court also directed the Central Government to take appropriate disciplinary action against the persons responsible for not ensuring the retirement of the concerned employees on his attaining age of superannuation. 5. Considering the ratio of the aforesaid decision this court is also not pursuaded to accept the plea that petitioner should be allowed to keep the salary because somebody allowed him to continue on the post. 5. Considering the ratio of the aforesaid decision this court is also not pursuaded to accept the plea that petitioner should be allowed to keep the salary because somebody allowed him to continue on the post. Such a direction has to be discouraged with all strictness and hence in this case also the respondents decision to refund the salary paid to the petitioner for the extra period as a due to be adjusted is correct in law and requires no interference by this Court. However, if for special reasons the Managing Director, Marketing Board accepts the request for not recovering the salary in question, then the Government may be justified in granting appropriate relief to the petitioner. However, this court would not like to issue any such direction and the matter is left open for decision of the Managing Director. 6. In view of aforesaid discussions the concerned respondents are directed to take prompt steps to pay the lawful balance dues of petitioners retirement benefits including Provident fund, gratuity etc. and regular pension at an early date and in any case within three months from the date of production/communication of a copy of this order before the competent authority of the department. The dues of provident fund must be paid along with statutory interest till the date of payment. 7. This writ application is disposed of accordingly.