Judgment 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. [See Paras 12 Result : Appeal Disposed of 2. As we shall presently notice, the only question that now survives for consideration is about the amount, which is stated by the appellants that they have paid to the respondent Director, College Education for the period from 01.02.1996 until the interim order under which the was allowed to continue. That is to say upto 30.06.1996. 3. The respondent while in service of the petitioner-appellant was suspended from service (in respect of a departmental inquiry) which was challenged by the incumbent inter alia on the ground that the suspension order was illegal. The order was challenged before the Rajasthan Non-governmental Educational Tribunal (hereinafter referred as "the Tribunal"). During the pendency of said appeal the present appellants made an order stating that the respondent has attained the age of retirement on 31.01.1996 and he has been retired from service. 4. When this fact was brought to the notice of the Tribunal. the Tribunal disposed of the appeal filed by the respondent on the ground that after retirement no punishment can be imposed and suspension automatically come to a close. In view of this the present appellants were directed to pay the retiral benefits to the incumbent. Against that order, the institution has preferred Writ Petition No. 102/1997 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and this appeal arise out of that order. 5. On the other hand, the respondent has also challenged the order of the institution retiring him at the age of 58 years claiming that under terms of employment age of superannuation is 60 and not 58 years. 6. It was during those proceedings he was allowed to continue in service under the orders of the Court until 30.06.1996. Thereafter, the interim order was vacated. 7. So far as the controversy that after the commencement of the Act of Non Governmental Educational Institution Act, 1989 and Rules framed thereunder the superannuation age of the incumbents under the such institution is governed under the provisions of such Act and Rules under which at the relevant time was 58 years only and not 60 years have finally been decided against the respondent. 8. 8. During the pendency of this appeal by a detailed order passed on 07.07.2000, this Court observed that so far as the retirement of the petitioner at least on completion of 58 years and consequence entitlement to retiral benefits on such retirement being not a contentious issue even on the basis of contention raised by present appellant, the payment of the retiral benefits computed on the basis of superannuation age to be 58 years could not be withheld and appellants were directed to pay all retrial benefits by considering that the incumbent has retired on attaining age of superannuation at 58 years, without prejudice to relief about additional emoluments for which the appellant may be made liable in case the age of superannuation is accepted to be 60 years. 9. Thereafter, another order was made on 09.05.2002 noticing same discrepancies in the calculation made about the amount to be paid by order dated 07.07.2000. The Court noticed that this is without prejudice to any orders which may be passed in respect of the amount paid after 31.01.1996 to the petitioner under the orders of the Court for the period during which he was allowed to continue in service. 10. Now the controversy about the retirement age has been settled. The appellant contends that the amount paid by him after 31.01.1996 to the date up to which petitioner was allowed to continue in service which have been paid to respondent be restituted to him. 11. On the other hand learned Counsel for the respondent states that he has not received any amount for this period. 12. We are of the opinion that we need not go into this controversy. The fact that the respondent was allowed to continue in service of the appellant under the orders of the Court for a short period is not in dispute. His services actually came to an end on vacation of interim order is also not in dispute. The fact that immediately before the order passed by the appellant retiring the petitioner from service on attaining the age of 58 years the respondent was under suspension does not affect the jural relation of the employer and employee between the appellant and the respondent which continues between the employer and the suspended employee. The fact that immediately before the order passed by the appellant retiring the petitioner from service on attaining the age of 58 years the respondent was under suspension does not affect the jural relation of the employer and employee between the appellant and the respondent which continues between the employer and the suspended employee. We are of the opinion that if any amount has been paid by the appellant for the period during which he has actually continued in service under the orders of the Court, same need not be recovered from the respondent. 10.13. On the other hand, if contention of by the learned Counsel for the respondent is accepted that no amount has been received by the respondent, then the appellant cannot be asked to pay any further amount because he has been found eligible to continue in service as a matter of right only upto attaining age of 58 years. 114. In view thereof no order is required to be passed either for the restitution or payments or any amount to be paid to the respondents. No other issue has been raised before us. The appeal stands disposed of . No order as to costs.