ORDER The petitioner is a retired Officer of the Indian Administrative Service Cadre. By this writ application he has challenged the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea, by which the Commissioner has order realization of salary to be paid to one of the collectorate staff of Kishanganj , from the petitioner who at the material time was the District Magistrate-cum-Collector Kishanganj. 2. When Kishanganj had been newly created as District, petitioner had been posted there as the District Magistrate-cum-Collector. There was acute shortage of staff because process of staff recruitment had not yet been completed in his office. Out of the 85 employees in the collectorate, six senior most staff retired. This created inconvenience in administering the newly formed district. Accordingly, looking to the work contingency the petitioner reemployed three of the retired senior most employees and sought approval of the Divisional Commissioner. Let it be noted that out of the three, only one joined who also left after about six months when he was not paid anything towards his remuneration. After two years the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea turned town the approval as sought for and consequently passed the aforesaid order as against the petitioner. This is what has been challenged. 3. In the counter affidavit that has been filed by the State the only defence is that prior approval/sanction had not been taken by the District Magistrate and as such the decision of the District Magistrate to re-employ the non-gazette officer was wrong and the decision of the Divisional Commissioner was correct. In the counter affidavit it is not contradicted that work in the newly created collectorate was being hampered because of superannuation almost simultaneous of six senior most staff. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that keeping this fact in mind, if the Collector took immediate step as a Collector and head of the district to reappoint senior most retiring staff, then it cannot be said to be an act which was wholly unauthorized. It was an act done in administrative exigency with due intimation to the Divisional Commissioner seeking his approval as well. The unfortunate part is that the Divisional Commissioner sat over the matter for two years. Had he any objection, then he could have reverted immediately, but in the counter affidavit there is no explanation why he sat over the matter. It was an act done in administrative exigency with due intimation to the Divisional Commissioner seeking his approval as well. The unfortunate part is that the Divisional Commissioner sat over the matter for two years. Had he any objection, then he could have reverted immediately, but in the counter affidavit there is no explanation why he sat over the matter. Thus the act of the Collector could at best be termed as irregular but by no strech of imagination illegal. 5. Be that as it may, considering what the District Magistrate-cum-Collector did, was in the larger public interest, which fact has not been denied in the counter affidavit, in my view, he cannot be held responsible for payment of the sum of about Rs. 49000/- as ordered. The order of the Divisional Commissioner to that extent cannot be sustained. It is, accordingly, quashed. The writ application is accordingly allowed.