JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. Under assailment is the decision of the Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. (hereafter also referred to as the 'Bank'), to realize an amount of Rs.3,31,531.39/-, from the otherwise admissible retiral benefits due to the petitioner, he said to have overstayed in service for a period of 13 months with effect from 01.01.2005. 2. I have heard Mr. Bijan Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.C. Borbora, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. G.B. Singh, Advocate for the respondent-Bank. 3. As agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at the admission stage, the pleadings being complete. The recorded case of the petitioner, is that after joining the service of the Bank on 07.01.1963, as a temporary godown Assistant, he was regularly appointed thereto on 07.02.1963. He, thereafter, worked his way up in the ranks and at his retirement at 31.01.2006, he held the post of Zonal Manager-I/General Manager, Southern Zone of the Bank. In between, by letter dated 07.07.1998, the General Manager (Administration) of the Bank, required him to substantiate his date of birth with necessary documents, as some discrepancy had been noticed in that regard. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his original matriculation certificate reflecting his date of birth to be 01.02.1946. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3, by his letter dated 31.05.2004, intimated the petitioner that on the basis of his original matriculation certificate, his date of birth had been accepted by the Bank to be 01.02.1946. In due course, the said authority by his letter dated 02.11.2005, informed the petitioner that he would superannuate on 31.01.2006 (afternoon) under Rule 29(a) of the Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Limited Staff Rules 1980 (hereafter also referred to as the 'Rules'). The petitioner was subsequent thereto, directed by the respondent No. 2 by his letter dated 23.01.2006, to hand over the charge to Shri N.B. Das, Branch Manager, Silchar Branch on 31.01.2006 on his retirement. The petitioner thereafter made representations on 31.1.2006 and 10.03.2006, for disbursement of his retirement dues including gratuity and leave salary. The petitioner has disclosed that his service is not pensionable and that his retirement dues as above, is his only entitlement. On being asked, thereafter by the letter dated 31.03.2006 to submit his original age proof certificate for necessary authentication, the petitioner again furnished his original certificate as above. The petitioner has disclosed that his service is not pensionable and that his retirement dues as above, is his only entitlement. On being asked, thereafter by the letter dated 31.03.2006 to submit his original age proof certificate for necessary authentication, the petitioner again furnished his original certificate as above. In response to his next representation dated 01.05.2006, for payment of his retirement dues, the petitioner was served with a copy of the letter dated 27.06.2006 by the General Manager (Administration) of the Bank, addressed to the Branch Manager of Silchar Branch, disclosing that the Board of Directors of the Bank in its meeting held on 18.4.2006, had decided to recover an amount of Rs.3,31,531.39/- from his admissible retiral benefits of Rs.5,51,492.00/- as the petitioner had overstayed in service with effect from 01.01.2005 to 31.01.2006. The petitioner has asserted that on inquiries made thereafter, he came to learn that in the agenda memorandum placed by the managing Director of the Bank before the board on 18.04.2006, it had been inter alia, mentioned that his date of birth being 01.02.1946, he was short by 13 months from the minimum induction age of 18 years on 07.02.1963 and, therefore, on the date of his retirement at 60 years, he had overstayed in service for the said period. 4. The respondent-Bank in its affidavit, while affirming that the petitioner had jointed its services on 21.12.1962, as a temporary godown Assistant, has pleaded that in the certificate submitted by the petitioner from the Headmaster, Model High School, Patharkandi, his age therein, was recorded to be 15 years 1 month as on 31st of March, 1961. According to the deponent, the necessity for directing the petitioner to submit the certificate of age, was in view of a confusion that had arisen with regard to his date of birth, superannuation and recruitment in service. Viewing the seriousness of the issue, the same was placed before the Board of Director, which resolved to realize an amount of Rs.3,31,531.39/-, he having overstayed in service for 13 months. According to the answering respondents, the maximum period of service of a person with the Bank is 42 years. 5. Mr. Chakraborty has argued that the Bank, having accepted his date of birth to be 01.02.46 and retired him from its services with effect from 31.01.2006 on completion of 60 years, the impugned decision is per se, illegal and arbitrary. According to the answering respondents, the maximum period of service of a person with the Bank is 42 years. 5. Mr. Chakraborty has argued that the Bank, having accepted his date of birth to be 01.02.46 and retired him from its services with effect from 31.01.2006 on completion of 60 years, the impugned decision is per se, illegal and arbitrary. No reservation of any kind having been made by the Bank about his age at the time of his recruitment, the decision to realize the aforementioned amount, it having utilized his services for the entire period is manifestly unreasonable, unfair and unjust. The petitioner having earned the above amount in return of the services rendered, recovery thereof, in the manner proposed is impermissible in law, he urged. There being no imputation of malafide or deceit practiced by him in securing his entry and continuance in service, the impugned decision is liable to be adjudged ineffectual, null and void. In support of his submission, Mr. Chakraborty, placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in 1994 (2) LLJ 67 SC (State of Bihar v. Narasimha Sundram) and (2005) 13 SCC 576 (Kailash Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors.) 6. Mr. Borbora, per contra, referring to Rule 14(a)(ii) of the Rules, has urged that as the minimum age for entry in the service of the Bank, is prescribed to be 18 years, having regard to the retirement age, the petitioner was rightly taken to have superannuated on 31:12.2004. As the maximum tenure of a Bank's employee, having regard to the minimum age of entry and the retirement age is 42 years, the petitioner having joined the services of the Bank with effect from 21.12.1962, he ought to have retired on 31.12.2004. He thus, having overstayed in service for 13 months, the Bank was justified in deciding to realize the aforementioned amount paid in excess from his retirement dues. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Senior counsel in the alternative has urged that even assuming that in the facts and circumstances of the case, such a deduction ought not to be permitted in view of the services actually rendered by him, the period in excess cannot be reckoned for computing his retirement dues. Mr. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Senior counsel in the alternative has urged that even assuming that in the facts and circumstances of the case, such a deduction ought not to be permitted in view of the services actually rendered by him, the period in excess cannot be reckoned for computing his retirement dues. Mr. Borbora, sought to reinforce his arguments, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in 2001 (1) LLJ 532 SC (G.M., Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., West Bengal v. Shib Kumar Dushad and Ors.). 7. The rival submissions have been duly considered. As alluded hereinabove, the petitioner's date of birth had been accepted by the Bank to be 01.02.46. Evidently, therefore, on the date of his entry in service on 21.12.1962 or 07.01.1963 or 07.02.1963, as the case may be, he was below 18 years of age. There is no dispute either that till his superannuation on 31.01.2006, there was no break in his service in between. The resolution of the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 18.04.2006, discloses that at the time of the petitioner's recruitment in service, there was no prescribed lower age limit therefor. The same as 18 years, as per Rule 14(a)(ii), had been stipulated thereafter. The Rules do not prescribe any maximum tenure of service with the Bank. The minimum age limit, having been ordained by the Rules, considering the age of retirement to be 60 years, it is, however, computable to be 42 years. The said determinant, however, is not applicable in the case of the petitioner, there being no prescribed lower age limit at the time of his recruitment. He did not overstay in service beyond the superannuation age of 60 years. Not only, the authorities of the Bank, at the time of his entry, did raise any objection thereto vis-a-vis his age, nor had the issue surfaced during his entire service term. The petitioner continued with the bank and no complaint about his conduct or quality of his service is discernible from the materials available on record. No overt act of fraud or deception has been alleged against him to secure a premature entry. Of allegation of malafide has been made against him either. The plea of double benefit based on early induction and delayed retirement, in my view in the prevailing circumstances is not available to the Bank. 8. No overt act of fraud or deception has been alleged against him to secure a premature entry. Of allegation of malafide has been made against him either. The plea of double benefit based on early induction and delayed retirement, in my view in the prevailing circumstances is not available to the Bank. 8. In Kailash Singh (supra), the original service book of the appellant in which his date of birth was recorded as 13.01.1946, having been lost, a Medical Board was constituted to determine the age of the appellant along with others. According to the Medical Board, which conducted the examination in the year, 2000, the appellant's age was opined to be 65 years. Acting thereon, his date of retirement was fixed on 31.03.1995 and the salary for the period in excess, was sought to be recovered from him. His post retiral benefits were also sought to be quantified accordingly. The Apex Court having noticed the undisputed fact that the appellant had rendered his services upto 24.04.2000, held that he was entitled to his salary till that date, as well as his post-retrial benefits on the basis thereof. The proposed recovery of his salary for the period 01.04.1995 to 24.04.2000, was injuncted and his post-retiral benefits were directed to be worked out accordingly. 9. The case of the appellant in State of Bihar v. Narasimha Sundram (supra), was that the respondent on the basis of his true age, was to be retired on 31.01.1988, but he remained in service by playing fraud on the department. It was, however, admitted that he had served till 30.09.1989. The Apex Court upheld the respondent's claim for salary for the period February, 1988 to September, 1989, as no proceeding had been initiated to inquire into the allegation of fraud. However, as it was pointed out that certain criminal proceedings as well as those under the relevant pension rules, were pending, liberty was granted to the appellant-State to make necessary payments on that count after final orders therein. The consistent judicial opinion as above, projects the view that the pay of a person, even if he overstays his tenure in service, ought not to be ordinarily denied, if he had rendered his services for the period in excess. 10. The consistent judicial opinion as above, projects the view that the pay of a person, even if he overstays his tenure in service, ought not to be ordinarily denied, if he had rendered his services for the period in excess. 10. The respondent in G.M., Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. West Bengal (supra), was an employee of a private colliery, before being absorbed in the service of the appellant. The service record received from the previous employer showed 1932 as his year of birth. In the certificate acquired by him from the Director General of Mines Safety on the basis of the particulars submitted by him, his date of birth was shown to be 09.02.1946. He having claimed it to be so, the appellant in terms of "Employment", Instruction No. 46, referred the matter to the Medical Board, which determined his age to be 52 years in 1988. Relying on the report, the appellant accepted the respondent's year of birth to be 1936 and was superannuated him in 1996. He successfully challenged this decision before the jurisdictional High Court, which upheld his date of birth to be 0.02.1946 and ordered his retirement from service in the year, 2006. 11. In the contextual facts, the Apex Court interfered with the determinations of the High Court and returned a finding that the respondent would not be entitled to any service benefit on the basis of service beyond date/year of superannuation as ascertained by the appellant, except the salary/wage already received by him. 12. In my view, the facts as obtained in the above decision are distinguishable from those in hand. In the present lis, neither there is any dispute with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner nor has he overstayed in service beyond his superannuating age. There being no stipulated minimum age of entry in the Bank's services at the relevant time, his induction per se, cannot be impeached as opposed to the service norms of the Bank. This decision is of no avail for circumscribing the post-retiral benefits of the petitioner. 13. On a consideration of the totality of the recorded facts, I am of the view that judicial intervention is warranted for the petitioner's redress. In the result, the impugned decision of deducting an amount of Rs.3,31,531.39/-, from his retiral benefits is adjudged to be unsustainable in law. 13. On a consideration of the totality of the recorded facts, I am of the view that judicial intervention is warranted for the petitioner's redress. In the result, the impugned decision of deducting an amount of Rs.3,31,531.39/-, from his retiral benefits is adjudged to be unsustainable in law. His post-retiral benefits as well, would be computed on the basis of his entire service period till 31.01.2006. The petition stands allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.