Judgment :- 1. The petitioner herein joined the service of the first respondent as Casual Labour on 09.12.1965. The petitioner was absorbed as permanent employee as a Gardener in the month of March, 1972. The petitioner gave an undertaking in the year 1973 to the effect that he was 31 years old. The provisions contained under the Standing Orders of the respondents, particularly Regulation 36 (2) states that if the workman concerned is unable to produce the evidence of his age and in a case where the Board has not accepted the declaration, it is open to the Board to have the workman examined by a Medical Officer. 2. Therefore, in accordance with the said provisions, a medical examination was ordered by the third respondent by the memo dated 27.10.1976. A certificate was issued by the Medical Officer of the respondents on 22.12.1976 stating that the petitioner was aged about 32 years as on that date. Thereafter, the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2000. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was informed that inasmuch as he has given an undertaking earlier in the year 1973, he is deemed to have retired on 30.06.2002. 3. In view of the said communication sent by the third respondent, the petitioner was not given the retiral benefits. The petitioner and his wife made representations on 01.11.2002, 06.02.2003, 02.06.2003 and legal notice on 18.01.2005 to the respondents seeking payment of all the retiral dues, taking into consideration of his services till the date of his superannuation. Thereafter, by the impugned proceedings dated 02.03.2005, the third respondent herein has informed the petitioner that in view of the audit objection that the petitioner's undertaking should be the basis and he is deemed to have retired on 30.06.2000 itself, and considering the fact that he has worked for a period of two more years, the said period was taken as re-employment period and therefore, the petitioner cannot be given the retiral benefits between the period starting from 01.07.2000 to 25.06.2002. It has been further stated that the salary paid to the petitioner between 01.07.2000 to the date of his superannuation has been wrongly made, as if he was working regularly and therefore, the same will have to be re-computed, as if he was re-employed. Accordingly, the petitioner has been informed that a recovery has to be made for the salary wrongly paid. Accordingly, the petitioner has been informed that a recovery has to be made for the salary wrongly paid. Consequent to the said order dated 02.03.2005, another order was passed on 03.10.2005, recovering a sum of Rs.1,64,211/- from the retiral benefits payable to the petitioner. Challenging the said proceedings dated 02.03.2005, the petitioner has come forward to file the present Writ Petition and for a consequential direction to the respondents to fix the superannuation of the petitioner as on 30.06.2002 and pay him the retiral benefits for the services rendered by him upto 30.06.2002. 4. The petitioner gave an undertaking in the year 1973 stating that his age was 31 years at that point of time. However, for the reasons known to the respondents, they did not accept the undertaking given by the petitioner. That is the reason why the third respondent has ordered for a medical examination in and by the memo dated 27.10.1976. The standing orders of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, particularly Regulation 36(2) provides for the procedure to be followed in a case where the undertaking given by the employee has not been accepted by the Board. In other words, if the Board is satisfied with the undertaking then no such orders need to be passed requiring an employee to appear before the medical board. The order passed by the third respondent dated 27.10.1976, directing the petitioner to appear before the medical board itself is an indication to show that the declaration given by him has not been accepted. It is pertinent to note that the medical board has been constituted by the respondents. The Medical Officer in and by the Certificate dated 22.12.1976 certified that the petitioner was 32 years at that point of time. The certificate issued by the Medical Officer was accepted by the respondents. Accordingly, the petitioner was allowed to retire on 30.06.2002. Till 25.06.2002, there was no indication that the declaration given by the petitioner would be the basis. The petitioner worked as a regular employee and the salary has been paid to him accordingly. It is nobody's case that the petitioner has suppressed the facts. 5. Thereafter, in pursuant to the order passed by the third respondent, the petitioner gave several representations stating that he being an illiterate person and having a family to maintain, the retiral benefits will have to be given to him. It is nobody's case that the petitioner has suppressed the facts. 5. Thereafter, in pursuant to the order passed by the third respondent, the petitioner gave several representations stating that he being an illiterate person and having a family to maintain, the retiral benefits will have to be given to him. The petitioner has approached the respondents by way of several representations and legal notice and agitated his claim for about three years. Thereafter, the order impugned has been passed on 02.03.2005 stating that, in view of the audit objection, the petitioner's age will have to be taken into account as given by him in his undertaking in the year 1973. Such an approach on part of the respondents cannot be countenanced. Admittedly, the petitioner did not have any proof about his age. The petitioner is an illiterate and poor person and that is the reason why he gave a declaration. The respondents did not accept the declaration and that is the reason why he was referred to the Medical Board. The report of the Medical Officer was accepted by the respondents. When that is the case, the procedures contemplated under the standing orders of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, particularly Regulation 36(2) having been complied with, it is not open to the respondents to change their stand and thereafter contend that the petitioner ought to have retired on 30.06.2000. It is pertinent to note that the said decision was taken only in pursuant to the audit objection. Therefore, the petitioner is nowhere responsible for the action of the respondents treating him as regular employee after 30.06.2000. 6. Considering the above said facts, this Court is of the view that the decision of the respondents in re-employing the petitioner, which was not the case at the time while he was worked till 25.06.2002, cannot be sustained. The petitioner was allowed to work till 30.06.2002 and he was given the duties and responsibilities of a regular employee. Salary was also paid to him as a regular employee. Therefore, when the petitioner has given a declaration in the year 1973, the same cannot be relied upon after more than 26 years of service and that too by rejecting the same and after accepting the report of the medical officer. 7. Furthermore, it is seen that admittedly the petitioner has not been given any opportunity to substantiate his case. He has since retired. 7. Furthermore, it is seen that admittedly the petitioner has not been given any opportunity to substantiate his case. He has since retired. A unilateral recovery is sought to be made on the petitioner after his retirement. The order of re-employment has been passed behind the back of the petitioner. Therefore, looking at from any angle, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 02.03.2005, cannot be sustained. 8. Therefore, considering the above said facts, coupled with the further fact that the petitioner has since retired, this Court is of the view that the order impugned will have to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed to compute the retiral benefits due to the petitioner, as if he was worked till 30.06.2002 on a regular basis and pay the same within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.