ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Y. K. Saxena, counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. ( 2 ) COUNTER and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided. ( 3 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 12th June, 1998 passed by District Panchayat Raj Officer, Firozabad, and consequential order dated 18th June, 1998 passed by the Block Development Officer, Jasrana, district Firozabad in so far as they relate to recovery of 16 months salary with interest. A writ of mandamus has further been prayed commanding the respondents not to realise 16 months back salary with interest. A further prayer has also been made directing the respondents to pay the petitioner salary of the revised pay scale with effect from 1. 1. 1996 and also the salary for the month of May, 1998 and June, 1998. ( 4 ) THE facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings of the parties are ; the petitioner was appointed on the post of Panchayat Secretary in pursuance thereof he joined on 27th December, 1960. By Government order dated 28th September, 1971, the Panchayat Secretaries were declared to be Government servants. Petitioners date of birth is 25th January, 1939, which is mentioned in the gradation list issued by the department from time to time. By order dated 21st november, 1995, issued by the Deputy Director (Administration), Panchayatiraj, U. P. , Lucknow, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat ). By order dated 16th March, 1996, the petitioner was relieved by Block Development Officer, Goverdhan for submitting his joining before the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Firozabad. It was further directed that after submitting his joining, he may appear in the office of Block Development officer for handing over charge after completing the remaining documents. The petitioner stated that in pursuance of the order dated 16th March, 1996, he submitted his joining on 18th March, 1996, in the office of District Panchayat Raj Officer, Firozabad. The petitioner has stated that his service book. G. P. F. pass book, etc. were in block Goverdhan, district Mathura and he was feeling difficulty in encashment of leave, etc. The petitioner stated that in pursuance of the order dated 16th March, 1996, he submitted his joining on 18th March, 1996, in the office of District Panchayat Raj Officer, Firozabad. The petitioner has stated that his service book. G. P. F. pass book, etc. were in block Goverdhan, district Mathura and he was feeling difficulty in encashment of leave, etc. , he wrote a letter on 20th September, 1996, to the block Development Officer, Firozabad, in which he prayed that his service book be called from block Goverdhan, Mathura, so that his salary may be fixed. In that letter, he further stated that due to absence of service book, he is unable to get benefit of leave encashment. Petitioner states that he again wrote a letter on 12th January, 1998, to the same extent. ( 5 ) THE petitioner received an order dated 12th June, 1998, by District Panchayat Raj Officer, firozabad, which directed the Block Development Officer to recover 16 months salary paid to the petitioner. The order states that Block Development Officer, Goverdhan, by his letter dated 3rd June, 1998, sent the service book and G. P. F. pass book of the petitioner from which it is apparent that the date of birth of the petitioner is 25th January, 1939 on the basis of which he should have been retired in January, 1997 but in absence of service book and due to presentation of wrong facts by the petitioner with regard to his date of birth, he could not be retired. A consequential order dated 18th June, 1998, was issued by the Block Development Officer. Jasrana, directing that the petitioner will be treated to be retired from 31st January, 1997 and he should deposit 16 months salary unauthorisedly taken by him in the office along with interest. The petitioner has further stated that he is also entitled for revised pay scale from 1. 1. 1996 on the post of Assistant Development Officer. ( 6 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents in which it has been stated that petitioner did not hand over his charge to Village Panchayat Raj Officer, Block Goverdhan, district mathura, inspite of direction of the Block Development Officer to hand over the charge deliberately with a view to mislead the authorities. ( 6 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents in which it has been stated that petitioner did not hand over his charge to Village Panchayat Raj Officer, Block Goverdhan, district mathura, inspite of direction of the Block Development Officer to hand over the charge deliberately with a view to mislead the authorities. It has been stated in paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit that the service record of the petitioner was got retained by him on one pretext or the other. It has been stated that even the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari is a Group-C post, retirement age of which is 58 years as provided in Rule 56 of Financial Hand Book. It has been further stated that the petitioner deliberately did not disclose his date of birth to the district authorities of Firozabad, which is a misconduct on the part of the petitioner. According to petitioners service he ought to have been retired on 31st January, 1997 and since the service record of the petitioner was not available in district Firozabad, the district authorities were not aware of the date of birth of the petitioner. It has further been averred that service records were not sent to Firozabad due to manipulation of the petitioner himself. It has further been stated that since the petitioner was working by misleading the authorities after expiry of the date of retirement, he is not entitled for any emoluments of salary. ( 7 ) A rejoinder-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in which the petitioner has stated that he has already handed over the charge in support of which certain certificates issued by Pradhan of village have been filed. It has further been stated that service record of the petitioner was with the officers and it was their duty to look into the service record and retire the petitioner with effect from 31st January, 1997. It has been further stated that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the fault and utter negligence on the part of the officers. The petitioner has stated that since he has been permitted to work, there is no question of return of salary. ( 8 ) I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. It has been further stated that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the fault and utter negligence on the part of the officers. The petitioner has stated that since he has been permitted to work, there is no question of return of salary. ( 8 ) I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. The principal issue raised in the writ petition is as to whether the petitioner, who continued to work even after his retirement age, i. e. , 31st January, 1997, can be directed to refund the salary received by him subsequent to his date of retirement. From the facts, which have come on the record, it is clear that there is no dispute with regard to date of retirement of the petitioner. Petitioners date of birth being 25. 1. 1939, he was to retire on 31st January, 1997. At the time of retirement, the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) the age of retirement for which post is admittedly 58 years. Petitioners case is that since he was not retired on 31st January, 1997 and allowed to continue, therefore, the salary which he has received after the date of retirement, cannot be directed to be refunded. The provisions pertaining to retirement of a government servant is contained in Fundamental Rule 56, Fundamental Rule 56 is quoted below : "56. (a) Except as otherwise provided in other clauses of this Rule, every Government servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty-eight years. He may be retained in service on or after the date of retirement on superannuation, with the sanction of the Government, on public grounds, which must be recorded in writing, but he must not be retained after the age of 60 years except in very special circumstances : provided that a Government servant, recruited before November 5, 1985 and holding the Group d post shall retire from service on the afternoon of the month in which he attains the age of 60 (sixty) years. Explanation.--The above proviso shall not be applicable in those cases where the status of a post/posts referred to in the above proviso, has been changed after February 27, 1982 and categorized in higher Group of post/posts. Explanation.--The above proviso shall not be applicable in those cases where the status of a post/posts referred to in the above proviso, has been changed after February 27, 1982 and categorized in higher Group of post/posts. " (b) Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (a) or Clause (b), the appointing authority may, at any time, by notice to any Government servant (whether permanent or temporary), without assigning any reason, require him to retire after he attains the age of fifty years or such government servant may, by notice to the appointing authority, voluntarily retire at any time after attaining the age of (forty five years) or after he has completed qualifying service for twenty years. (c) The period of such notice shall be three months : provided that : (i) any such Government servant may by order of the appointing authority, without such notice or by a shorter notice, be retired forthwith at any time after attaining the age of fifty years, and on such retirement the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances, if any, for the period of the notice or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of three months, at the same rates at which he was drawing immediately before his retirement ; (ii) it shall be open to the appointing authority to allow a Government servant to retire without any notice or by a shorter notice without requiring the Government servant to pay any penalty in lieu of notice : provided further that such notice given by the Government servant against whom a disciplinary proceeding is pending or contemplated, shall be effective only if it is accepted by the appointing authority, provided that in the case of a contemplated disciplinary proceeding the Government servant shall be informed before the expiry of his notice that it has not been accepted : provided also that the notice once given by a Government servant under Clause (c) seeking voluntary retirement shall not be withdrawn by him except with the permission of the appointing authority. (d) A retiring pension shall be payable and other retirement benefits, if any, shall be available in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the relevant Rules to every Government servant who retires or is required or allowed to retire under this Rule : (Provided that where a Government servant who voluntarily retires or is allowed voluntarily to retire under this Rule the appointing authority may allow him, for the purposes of pension and gratuity, if any, the benefit of additional service of five years or of such period as he would have served if he had continued till the ordinary date of his superannuation, whichever be less) ; explanations.-- (1) The decision of the appointing authority under clause (c) to require the government servant to retire as specified therein shall be taken if it appears to the said authority to be in the public interest, but nothing herein contained shall be construed to require any recital, in the order of such decision having been taken in the public interest. (2) In order to be satisfied whether it will be in the public interest to retire a Government servant to retire under Clause (c) the appointing authority may take into consideration any material relating to the Government servant and nothing herein contained shall be construed to exclude from consideration : (a) any entries relating to any period before such Government servant was allowed to cross any efficiency may or before he was promoted to any post in an officiating or substantive capacity or on ad hoc basis ; or (b) any entry against which a representation is pending, provided that the representation is also taken into consideration along with the entry : or (c) any report of the Vigilance Establishment constituted under Uttar Pradesh Vigilance establishment Act. 1965. (2a) Every such decision shall be deemed to have been taken in the public interest ). (3) The expression "appointing authority" means the authority which for the time being has the power to make substantive appointments to the post or service from which the Government servant is required or wants to retire ; and the expression "qualifying service" shall have the same meaning as in the relevant Rules relating to retiring pension. (3) The expression "appointing authority" means the authority which for the time being has the power to make substantive appointments to the post or service from which the Government servant is required or wants to retire ; and the expression "qualifying service" shall have the same meaning as in the relevant Rules relating to retiring pension. (4) Every order of the appointing authority regarding a Government servant to retire forthwith under the first proviso to Clause (d) at this Rule shall have effect from the forenoon of the date of its issue, provided that, if after the date of its issue, the Government servant concerned, bona fide and in ignorance of that order, performs the duties of his office, his acts shall be deemed to be valid notwithstanding the fact of his having earlier retired. " ( 9 ) THE words in Fundamental Rule 56 (a) are--"every Government servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of last date of month in which he attains the age of 58 years. " A plain reading of the Rule indicates that Rule mandates retirement of Government servant when he attains the age of 58 years. The words "shall retire from service" cannot be said to be without any purpose. The words "retire from service" also cast duty on the Government servant to retire on the afternoon of the last date of the month when he attains the age of superannuation. The fundamental Rules and the Financial Hand Books contain the statutory provisions giving various rights of a Government servant including right of leave, pay fixation, right to continue to a specified age. Fundamental Rule 56 also contains a right to a Government servant that he cannot be retired before he attains the age of superannuation. The rights are co-relative with duty. The fundamental Rule 56 also casts a duty on a Government servant to retire on specified date. The audit instructions issued regarding Fundamental Rule 56 also re-enforces that Government servant is under duty to report on attaining a specified age. Audit instructions 1 issued under fundamental Rule 56 are quoted below : "1. The rights are co-relative with duty. The fundamental Rule 56 also casts a duty on a Government servant to retire on specified date. The audit instructions issued regarding Fundamental Rule 56 also re-enforces that Government servant is under duty to report on attaining a specified age. Audit instructions 1 issued under fundamental Rule 56 are quoted below : "1. When a Government servant is required to retire, revert or ceases to be on leave, on attaining a specified age the day on which he attains that age is reckoned as a non-working day, and the government servant must retire, revert or cease to be on leave (as case may be) with effect and including that day. " ( 10 ) THE audit instructions clearly mentions that even if a Government servant is on leave, he is required to retire and the aforesaid day is reckoned as a non-working day. If a Government servant is continuing on leave, he will be ceased to be on leave. Fundamental Rule 56 (a) and the audit instructions issued under the aforesaid Rules clearly contemplate that Government servant is under duty to lay his office on attaining a specified age. A Government servant cannot continue on his post on the pretext that he was not asked to retire on that day. ( 11 ) THE present case is a case in which Government servant has come to this Court saying that since he was not retired on age of superannuation and continued in the office, the salary paid to him cannot be permitted to be recovered. Issue further is that what is the nature and consequence of his continuance after age of superannuation. Rule 56 (c) provides that the appointing authority may without assigning reasons require a Government servant to retire after he attains the age of 50 years. Clause (d) further requires that such notice shall be of three months. Rule 56 (4)contemplates a situation that when even after issue of the order which will have effect from the afternoon of the day of issue, the Government servant concerned bona fide and in ignorance of that order performing the duty of the office, his act shall be deemed to be valid notwithstanding the fact of his having earlier retired. Rule 56 (4)contemplates a situation that when even after issue of the order which will have effect from the afternoon of the day of issue, the Government servant concerned bona fide and in ignorance of that order performing the duty of the office, his act shall be deemed to be valid notwithstanding the fact of his having earlier retired. This provision thus recognised continuance of the government servant even when an order under Rule 56 (d) has been passed for his retirement provided the said continuance is bona fide and in ignorance of that order. Thus, in such a situation when an order has been passed compulsorily retiring a Government servant and even after issue of the order. Government servant continues in ignorance of the order and bona fide, his continuance is recognised. Taking to converse even when order of retirement has been passed under Rule 56 (d) and the Government servant continues not bona fide, his continuance is not valid. When the above principle is applicable with regard to compulsory retirement, requirement of bona fide continuance after attaining the age of superannuation can also be inferred for holding continuance valid after normal age of retirement. If after attaining the normal age of superannuation, continuance of Government servant is not bona fide, his continuance cannot be treated to be valid. The question to be considered is as to whether the petitioner bona fide continued after attaining the age of superannuation or not? From the facts which have come on the record, it is clear that petitioners service book was not sent to Firozabad where he was transferred from Mathura. The respondents have clearly and categorically stated in the counter-affidavit that it was the petitioner who manipulated that his record be not sent. From the fact, it is clear that the petitioner since did not hand over his charge at Block Goverdhan, district mathura, hence his records were not forwarded to Firozabad. Whereas the order dated 16th march, 1996. relieving the petitioner to Firozabad clearly contemplates that after taking over charge at Firozabad, petitioner will, without any delay, appear in the office of Block development Officer, Goverdhan, Mathura and complete incomplete documents and hand over charge. The petitioner has not brought out on record any material to show that after the aforesaid order, he appeared in the office of Block Development Officer, Goverdhan, Mathura and hand over his charge. The petitioner has not brought out on record any material to show that after the aforesaid order, he appeared in the office of Block Development Officer, Goverdhan, Mathura and hand over his charge. No certificate of handing over charge has been filed. Whereas in the counter-affidavit, the respondents have filed letters dated 9. 4. 1996, issued by the Block development Officer, Goverdhan, Mathura, 16. 4. 1996 issued by the District Panchayat Raj officer, Firozabad, 20. 1. 1997 issued by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Firozabad. 25. 1. 1997 issued by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Mathura and letter dated 5. 2. 1997 issued by the district Panchayat Raj Officer, Firozabad. These letters clearly prove that even up to 31st january, 1997, when petitioner attained normal age of superannuation he did not hand over his charge at Goverdhan, district Mathura. Consequently his service records were presumably not forwarded to Firozabad. From these facts, the assertions of the respondents in the counter-affidavit that it was the petitioner who was responsible for not getting his record sent to firozabad appears to be correct. When the petitioner did not hand over charge inspite of several notices and letters at Goverdhan, Mathura, it is clear that he was deliberately withholding his records at Mathura so that his immediate officers of Firozabad could not know about his date of birth. In the rejoinder-affidavit although the petitioner has filed certain certificates from Gram pradhans that they have no objection for relieving of the petitioner and there is no dues on him but the aforesaid certificate do not fulfil the requirement of handing over charge. Apart from above, there are two letters of the petitioner filed by him, namely, letter dated 20th September, 1996 and 12th January, 1997 (Annexures-5 and 6 to the writ petition) in which the petitioner has requested the Block Development Officer, Firozabad to get his service record called from goverdhan. Mathura so that his salary can be fixed and he may avail the benefit of leave encashment. In the aforesaid letter, the petitioner has not made a whisper regarding his date of superannuation which was going to happen on 31st January, 1997. The petitioner did not at any point of time intimate his authorities at district Firozabad that his date of birth is 25. 1. 1939 and he is going to retire on 31st January, 1997. In the aforesaid letter, the petitioner has not made a whisper regarding his date of superannuation which was going to happen on 31st January, 1997. The petitioner did not at any point of time intimate his authorities at district Firozabad that his date of birth is 25. 1. 1939 and he is going to retire on 31st January, 1997. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner deliberately concealed his date of birth and date of retirement from his immediate officers at firozabad, and at no point of time, even suggested that his retirement is due in January, 1997. Petitioner who was going to retire in January. 1997 and whose service record was admittedly not at Firozabad was required to bring in the notice of the district authorities that he is to retire on 31st January, 1997. The State Government has framed a Rule, namely, Uttar Pradesh pension ke mamlon ki (Prastutikaran nistaran aur vetan mein parivartan) Niyamawali, 1995. The aforesaid rules contain detailed provisions regarding preparation of pension papers, submission of pension papers to the authorities and other connected matters. The aforesaid Rules contemplate that 8 months before the retirement. Government servant is to be given pension papers for filling up the same and it further requires that six months before the retirement, the Government servant has to fill-up his pension papers. The duty to fill up pension papers is cast on the Government servant six months before his retirement. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner was required to ask his employers to give his pension papers for filling the same. Instead of asking for pension papers, the petitioner avoided to bring into notice of his immediate authorities about his date of retirement and took advantage of the fact that his service book is at Goverdhan, Mathura, at his earlier place of posting. From the above facts, it is clear that petitioner did not act bona fide after 31st January, 1997, and his continuance after 31st January, 1997 was not bona fide. ( 12 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner has placed reliance on following judgments of this Court as well as apex Court in support of his contention that no recovery can be made from the petitioner in view of the facts of the case : (i) 2000 (1) ESC 385, Sri Gopal Singh v. Executive Engineer, (C. D.), Lok. N. Vibhag, Almora and another. N. Vibhag, Almora and another. (ii) 1989 (1) UPLBEC 797, Shubh Nath Dubey v. State of U. P. and another. (iii) 1995 Suppl (1) SCC 18, Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and others. (iv) 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316, Mool Raj Upadhayaya v. State of U. P. and others. (v) 1990 (S) UPLBEC 106. Baij Nath Singh v. State of U. P. and another. (vi) Judgment dated 14. 7. 1994 in W. P. No. 21209 of 1992, Prem Narain Shukla v. Director of secondary Education, U. P. , Kanpur Region, Kanpur and another. (vii) 1991 (2) UPLBEC 1407, Balgar v. Principal, G. S. V. M. , Medical College, Kanpur and another. (viii) 1994 (4) SLR 614, Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India and others. ( 13 ) WITH regard to decision of Sri Gopal Singh (supra), the aforesaid case was a case in which a government servant was given a notice of retirement at the age of superannuation, i. e. , at the age of 58 years. In the aforesaid case, the petitioner has claimed that age of retirement of the petitioner is 60 years and the authority while issuing the notice had not considered the U. P. Fundamental (1st Amendment) Rules, 1987. The Court in the aforesaid case directed the authorities to consider the fresh representation of the petitioner in view of the fact that authority issuing the notice was not alive to amendment Rules. The aforesaid case is clearly distinguishing. In the present case although the petitioner in paragraph 12 of the writ petition has stated that age of superannuation of Panchayat Sewak is 60 years and the said post is a class-IV post but admittedly at the time of normal age of superannuation, the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) and he stood promoted from the post of panchayat Sewak by order dated 21st November. 1995, which is a class-III post. Thus, at the time, when the petitioner completed 58 years of age, he was admittedly working on the post of assistant Development Officer (Panchayat), hence reference to age of retirement of Panchayat sewak is not relevant. 1995, which is a class-III post. Thus, at the time, when the petitioner completed 58 years of age, he was admittedly working on the post of assistant Development Officer (Panchayat), hence reference to age of retirement of Panchayat sewak is not relevant. Learned standing counsel has correctly pointed out that even the age of panchayat Sewak (Gram Panchayat Adhikari) for retirement is 58 years which has been laid down by Division Bench of this Court in Ram Chandra Lal v. Zila Panchayat Raj Adhikari, ghazipur, 1994 (2) ESC 530. In the aforesaid judgment, it was held that the post Panchayat Sewak/gram Vikas Adhikari is a group-C post and the claim of person who was appointed on the post of Panchayat Sewak prior to 15. 1. 1985 claiming to be a Group-D post earlier to retire after attaining the age of 60 years was rejected. ( 14 ) THAT in the second judgment in Shubh Nath Dubeys case (supra), it was found that the person was entitled to continue till 60 years of age. The aforesaid case is not relevant in the present case. In the present case, the petitioner has not even claimed that he is entitled to continue till 60 years of age, hence he should not have been retired on 31st January, 1997. Petitioner has rather accepted that he should have been retired on 31st January, 1997 but was not retired, hence he continued. ( 15 ) WITH regard to case of Shahib Ram (supra), it is to be noted that the aforesaid case was a case in which person was paid the benefit of higher pay scale to which he was not entitled. The Apex court directed that the amount already paid shall not be recovered since it was not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant. However, in the present case the respondents clear case the petitioner has misled the authorities and deliberately did not put the correct facts. After considering the facts on record, It has already been held in above paragraphs that petitioners act was not bona fide. In view of the facts of the present case, the aforesaid judgment of the Apex court does not help the petitioner. ( 16 ) THE next case relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner in Mool Raj Upadhayays case (supra ). In view of the facts of the present case, the aforesaid judgment of the Apex court does not help the petitioner. ( 16 ) THE next case relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner in Mool Raj Upadhayays case (supra ). Is a case in which the employee continued under the interim orders of the Supreme court. In view of the fact that employee was continuing under the interim order, the salary paid was not directed to be refunded. With regard to petitioners case there is no order of any Court for his continuance. The aforesaid case is fully distinguishable. ( 17 ) THE Division Bench judgment in Baij Nath Singhs case (supra) was also to the effect that if petitioner has worked in pursuance of interim order passed by High Court, pay shall not be realised from him. The aforesaid Judgment cannot help the petitioner. Rather in the aforesaid case, it was made permissible to realise the pay received by the petitioner after attaining the age of superannuation if that was not in pursuance of any interim order. To the same effect, there is another judgment of Prem Narain Shukla (supra) which again restrained the recovery if the petitioner continued on the basis of interim order. ( 18 ) THE last judgment relied by the counsel for the petitioner in Balgars case, was a case in which when the petitioner (Class-IV employee) was retired retrospectively, he claimed to continue till 60 years on the basis of his date of birth as 28. 3. 1934 as recorded in his service book. In the aforesaid case, the Court accepted the date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in his service book as 28th March, 1934 and allowed the petitioner to continue. In that case the principal on the basis of medical certificate had retired the petitioner earlier to his date of birth recorded in the service book. While deciding the aforesaid case, the Court also observed that petitioner could not have been retired retrospectively. In the aforesaid case the retirement was held to be illegal since according to date of birth as recorded in service book, the petitioner was entitled to continue. While deciding the aforesaid case, the Court also observed that petitioner could not have been retired retrospectively. In the aforesaid case the retirement was held to be illegal since according to date of birth as recorded in service book, the petitioner was entitled to continue. In that case, the question which is involved in the present case to the effect that if a Government servant continued beyond his age of superannuation whether salary received by him can be directed to be refunded moreso when Government servant is not challenging his date of superannuation or the date of birth recorded in the service book has not been considered. The aforesaid case is, thus, clearly distinguishable and it cannot help the petitioner in any manner. ( 19 ) THE statutory service Rules including Fundamental Rules which contain condition of service and other service benefits to a Government servant also cast a duty upon him to act in accordance with the aforesaid Rules. It cannot be said that Government servant has no duty even to Intimate his authorities about his date of superannuation. Fundamental Rule 56 (a) is in a mandatory form, which obliges both, employee and employer, not to continue a Government servant after he attains age of superannuation. If a Government servant continues even after attaining the age of superannuation and it is found that his continuance was not bona fide, the government servant is liable to refund the benefits received by him after completion of age of superannuation. The respondents did not commit any error in directing the petitioner to refund salary received by him after 31st January, 1997. ( 20 ) IN view of above discussions. I do not find any error in the impugned orders dated 12th June, 1998 and 18th June, 1998, in so far it directed recovery of salary of 16 months paid to the petitioner. However, in view of the fact situation of the case, the respondents were not entitled to direct for recovery along with interest. ( 21 ) WITH regard to the claim of the petitioner for payment of revised pay scale with effect from 1. 1. 1996, it is clear that the aforesaid benefit was given to all employees on the basis of recommendation of pay committee. Petitioner is clearly entitled for benefit of revised pay scale with effect from 1. 1. ( 21 ) WITH regard to the claim of the petitioner for payment of revised pay scale with effect from 1. 1. 1996, it is clear that the aforesaid benefit was given to all employees on the basis of recommendation of pay committee. Petitioner is clearly entitled for benefit of revised pay scale with effect from 1. 1. 1996 and the respondents were obliged to pay arrears of salary of the petitioner in the revised pay scale which was admissible to him up to his normal age of superannuation, i. e. , 31st January, 1997. ( 22 ) IN view of the above discussions, the present writ petition is disposed of with following directions : (i) The petitioner will be liable to refund 16 months salary received by him as directed by order dated 12th June, 1998 and 18th June, 1998. The petitioner, however, will not be liable to pay interest on the aforesaid 16 months salary. (ii) The petitioner will be entitled to receive arrears of salary of revised pay scale from 1. 1. 1996 upto 31st January, 1997, which is his normal age of superannuation, if already not paid. (iii) in view of the impugned order directing for refund of salary received by the petitioner after 31st January, 1997, he will be entitled for his retirement benefits from 1st February, 1997. It will be open to the respondents to adjust the 16 months salary already paid to the petitioner out of his retirement benefits and the arrears of revised pay scale. ( 23 ) WITH the above directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of.