Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. By virtue of order dated 14.9.2002 the respondent Corporation compulsorily retired the petitioner by invoking powers under Rule 29(B) under the Conduct and Disciplinary Rules of the Corporation. The order states that in lieu of three months notice, three months pay was being paid to the petitioner as valid compliance of the Rule in question. 3. Petitioner filed the present writ application thereafter challenging this order contained in Annexure-1. The basic contentions of the petitioner is that there is no compliance of Rule 29(B). There is no quarrel with the power which the Corporation has to compulsorily retire a person as such but when a specific rule is invoked then the powers have to be exercised in conformity with the rules. Petitioners contention is that in lieu of three months notice he has not been paid three months salary till date. It is a very limited question which has been raised by the petitioner in this case. 4. Respondents were granted indulgence and they were directed to file a categorical affidavit in this regard whether the petitioner was paid three months salary in lieu of notice in question. A supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 sworn by one Mahesh Prasad Singh, the Incharge District Manager, Saran at Chapra has been filed. A statement has been made in paragraph 4 that the Corporation had directed payment of three months salary to the petitioner but the then Incharge District Manager, Saran unfortunately and by mistake did not make the payments. In paragraph 5 they state that later on three months salary was calculated and it was sent by cheque no. 28686 dated 23.12.2006 through registered post on the home address of the petitioner but the same was returned unserved with the endorsement refused to accept. The contention of the respondents, therefore, is that insofar as they are concerned there was compliance with Rule 29(B). 5. The order in question contained in Annexure-1 was passed on 14.9.2002 since nothing came to be done petitioner filed the present writ application on 15.4.2005. Thereafter adjournments have been given to the respondents to file their affidavit with regard to compliance of Rule 29(B). 5. The order in question contained in Annexure-1 was passed on 14.9.2002 since nothing came to be done petitioner filed the present writ application on 15.4.2005. Thereafter adjournments have been given to the respondents to file their affidavit with regard to compliance of Rule 29(B). It is now clear from the affidavit that they discovered their folly and to cover up they have issued a cheque on 23.12.2006, that is good four years after the order of compulsory retirement. If the petitioner has refused to accept this payment as has been alleged in the affidavit then petititoner has committed no wrong. Petitioner has a right to receive three months salary in lieu of three months notice before he can be shown the door under Rule 29(B) of the Corporation. If the Corporation and its officials were hot diligent enough to understand their own provisions of law then the benefit will accrue in favour of the petitioner and the Corporation cannot be allowed to take double advantage of their action/inaction. 6. In a recent decision rendered in the case of Rana Abhai Singh vs. Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Patna & Ors., 2006(3) PLJR 400 a Division Bench of this Court had occasion to hold that if payments are not made to the employees in lieu of notice then it is no notice at all and the order of compulsory retirement is a nullity and has to be set aside. Admitted position being that the petitioner was not given three months salary for more than four years. That being the position, this Court has no option but to quash the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 dated 14.9.2002. 7. The writ application, therefore, stands allowed with a direction to the respondents to accept the joining of the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.