Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ petition the petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-3, an order of the Chief Executive Officer of the Darbhanga Municipal Corporation dated 25.11.2004, whereby modifying the earlier office order dated 1.3.2002 the petitioner has been held to have retired with effect from 31.10.1994 and it has been ordered that treating her date of retirement as 31.10.1994 her all pensionary benefits etc. has to be calculated. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier by said order dated 1.3.2002 the petitioner had retired with immediate effect and, as such, she was entitled for the salary of the period prior to 1.3.2002 and calculation of her pensionary benefits treating her to have retired on 1.3.2002. However, as a consequence of this impugned order salary of the petitioner for the period 1.11.1994 to 30.9.1999 has been realised from her pensionary benefits to the tune of Rs. 1,04,880.00 and it is stated that Rs. 49,604.00 is still to be realised. He further submits that she continued in service for no fault of her without any misrepresentation or concealment of fact by her and she continued in service under the orders of her superior authority, as such, the respondents have committed illegality by deducting the amount from her pensionary benefits for the period 1.11.1994 to 30.9.1999. 4. In this context learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on two judgments passed by this Court in the case of Most. Kanti Devi and Others V/s. The State of Bihar and Others, 2003 1 BLJ 220 and in the case of Kaushalya V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors., 1999 2 BBCJ 413 . In the said judgments it has been held that if an incumbent continued in service even after superannuation for no fault on his part and for no concealment of fact or misrepresentation, then in that case salary paid to the incumbent cannot be realised. 5. Learned counsel for the Corporation has appeared and supported the impugned order as contained in Annexure-3. He has submitted that it was upon the petitioner to inform her date of retirement and as she did not do it, she was not entitled to the salary for the said period and it was rightly realised from her pensionary benefits. 5. Learned counsel for the Corporation has appeared and supported the impugned order as contained in Annexure-3. He has submitted that it was upon the petitioner to inform her date of retirement and as she did not do it, she was not entitled to the salary for the said period and it was rightly realised from her pensionary benefits. In support of his contention learned counsel for the Corporation has relied on a decision in the case of State of Bihar and Others V/s. Daroga Prasad and Anr., 2001 4 PLJR 840 . I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the Corporation. 6. From bare reading of Annexure-3, it appears that the date of retirement of the petitioner fixed as 31.10.1994 was not on the basis of completion of her age of 58 years but on her completion of 40 years service with the Corporation on that date, as such, her age was not taken into consideration in issuing Annexure-3 and only completion of service with the Corporation for 40 years was taken into account by the respondents. 7. In that view of the matter the date of retirement could not be shifted back and made retrospective in operation for the purposes of pecuniary benefits of the petitioner. Hence in any case if the petitioner had retired on completion of 40 years of service by order dated 1.3.2002, the said order has to be prospective in nature. 8. In the circumstances amount realised from the petitioner is directed to be refunded to the petitioner and the respondents shall also be liable to pay the salary of the petitioner up to February 2002 and fix up her pensionary benefits and there shall be no further realisation on this count. The respondents shall calculate and fix the pensionary benefits considering her date of retirement on 1.3.2002 pursuant to order dated 1.3.2002 in accordance with rules and regulation of the Corporation and pay the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months. 9. With these observations/directions this writ petition is disposed of.