JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. — Being aggrieved by the order dated 27.2.2002 (Annexure-7) issued by the Director of Lift Irrigation, Orissa, Bhubaneswar (opposite party No.2) directing the husband of the petitioner to deposit the total amount received by him as salary and allowances from the Corporation for the overstayal period in service, i.e. from 1.12.1988 to 31.8.1997 and threaten¬ing him to face criminal charges if not done so, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 2. The husband of the petitioner, Rama Chandra Nayak, was serving as a regular Pump Driver under the Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited, Cuttack. He joined service on 14.5.1966. In the service book of the employee his date of birth was noted as 25.11.1939. His name also found at sl. No. 98 of the gradation list prepared on 1.3.1989, vide Annexure-I which also reflects his date of birth to be 25.11.1939. The age of superannuation being 58th year, the employee was to retire on 30.11.1997. But then while he was continuing in service on 15.7.1997 an office order was issued indicating that he was to retire from service with effect from 30.11.1997. Subsequently, the said order dated 15.7.1997 was superseded by another order dated 17th October, 1997 to the effect that the employee was to be treated to have retired with effect from 30.11.1988 instead of 30.11.1997. There¬after the order dated 27.2.2002 (Annexure-7) was issued calling upon him to deposit the entire salary and allowances received by him from the Corporation for the period from 1.12.1988 to 31.8.1997. The petitioner submits that her husband was born on 25.11.1939 and the said date is noted on the First Page of his Service Book and the gradation list and he was scheduled to retire from service on 30.11.1997 on completion of 58th year and in fact he had served till that date and had received salary. The allegation that he had tampered his date of birth in the Service Book is stoutly denied on the ground that the Service Book was in custody of the Corporation and the employee had no access to that. The petitioner further submits that after receiving the order Annexure-7, her husband was deeply shocked, fell seriously ill and as adequate medical treatment could not be provided due to stringent financial difficulties he passed away on 28th June, 2002. The petitioner further submits that after receiving the order Annexure-7, her husband was deeply shocked, fell seriously ill and as adequate medical treatment could not be provided due to stringent financial difficulties he passed away on 28th June, 2002. Thereafter the petitioner approached the opposite party-authorities several times for disbursement of pension and other retirement benefits of her deceased husband, but then the latter are maintaining stoney silence and, as such, the petitioner had no option but to approach the portals of this Court. 3. After receiving notice, the opposite party-Corporation filed a counter affidavit taking the stand that the date of birth of late Rama Chandra Nayak was 25.11.1930 which was reflected in his Service Book. As per the said date, the employee ought to have retired on superannuation with effect from 30.11.1988. However the employee concerned managed to tamper the First Page of his Service Book to show that his date of birth was 25.11.1939. On the basis of such tampering with the date of birth, the employee continued in service till 1997. After coming to know the said fact immediate steps were taken to superannuated him. As the employee had manipulated his date of birth and there¬by managed to continue in service after 1.12.1988 illegally, he was neither entitled to salary or service benefit for the said excess period of service rendered by him and as such steps were taken for realization of the salary and allowances illegally drawn by him, and therefore the letter Annexure-7 was issued to him. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party-Corporation at length and perused the documents annexed to the Writ Petition, counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit. It is admitted that the em¬ployee concerned had entered service under the Corporation on 14.5.1966. The first page of his service book, a Xerox copy of which is filed as Annexure-A reveals that the date of birth of the employee was reflected as 25.11.1939. It appears to the naked eye that the last figure ‘9’ has been over-written with thereby changing the year of birth from 1930 to 1939. But then on the basis of the service book which was in the custody of the Corporation, the gradation list Annexure-1 had been prepared on 1.3.1989. The name of the employee finds place at sl. It appears to the naked eye that the last figure ‘9’ has been over-written with thereby changing the year of birth from 1930 to 1939. But then on the basis of the service book which was in the custody of the Corporation, the gradation list Annexure-1 had been prepared on 1.3.1989. The name of the employee finds place at sl. No.98 of the said gradation list and his date of birth has been clearly mentioned as 25.11.1939. Further admittedly, the employee was allowed to continue in service after 1.12.1988. 5. The question that needs determination of this Court is whether the employee was entitled to salary for the aforesaid period and whether salary already received by him needs to be recovered from him. Admittedly the employee concerned had dis¬charged his duties to the fullest satisfaction of the authorities concerned till he was made to retire. Thus he was entitled to salary for the work done by him. 6. As regards tampering with the date of birth in his Service Book is concerned, no material has been produced by the opposite party-Corporation nor is there any averment in its counter affidavit as to how and when such tampering was done and as to whether that was done by the employee concerned. It is well settled that the Service Book is always retained with the employ¬er and no employee has any access to handle the original Service Book. Thus the Corporation being the custodian of the Service Book it cannot blame an employee in case of any alteration of the entries made therein or the same being tampered with. In absence of any cogent material, it cannot conclusively be said that the employee concerned had a hand in it. Even otherwise, the same is a question of fact which cannot be effectually adjudicated under Writ Jurisdiction. 7. On a cumulative assessment of all the materials avail¬able on record, this Court feels that as the employee concerned had worked and had discharged duties for the aforesaid period he was entitled to salary for the said period and the order Annex¬ure-7 directing recovery of salary and allowances from him cannot be sustained. 8. So far as post-retirement benefits are concerned, this Court fails to appreciate the submission made on behalf of the opposite party-Corporation. 8. So far as post-retirement benefits are concerned, this Court fails to appreciate the submission made on behalf of the opposite party-Corporation. In the scenario of facts discussed in the preceding paragraphs and in view of the admitted case of the parties that the employee concerned had discharged duties, obviously he was entitled to salary and thus there is no reason why he could be denied his retirement benefits. A similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Singh v. State of Bihar and others, reported in 2005 (II) OLR (SC) 375. 9. Relying upon the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court and considering the entire scenario of facts as discussed above, this Court has no hesitation to quash the order Annexure-7 and direct that no recovery of salary received for the alleged excess period of service rendered by the employee con¬cerned shall be made by the Corporation, and orders accordingly. Payment of retirement benefits not being a bounty and rather the same being the statutory duty of the employer, this Court directs the Corporation to calculate the pension and other retirement benefits of the employee concerned as per the rules and pay the same within a period of four months from the date of communica¬tion of this judgment. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Petition allowed.