Judgment : Challa Kodanda Ram, J. 1. Petitioner is a retired Trolley Man, aged about 73 years, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (for short “the Tribunal”) by filing O.A.No.108 of 2006, questioning the letter No.P.500/Settlement/Appeals/110, dated 28.06.2004, issued by the 1st respondent seeking recovery of Rs.99,994/- with the allegation that the petitioner had received over payment for about 4 years beyond the age of superannuation due to alteration of date of birth in the service register. 2. The O.A. came to be dismissed by the Tribunal relying on the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Radha Kishun Vs. Union of India and others ( (1997) 9 SCC 239 ). 3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner entered the railway service as Trolley Man on 30.11.1953 and retired on 24.10.1994. In the Service Register the petitioner’s date of birth was entered as 07.10.1932. At a later stage, it was corrected as 07.10.1936 on 04.06.1962. As per the date of birth as entered at the initial stage, petitioner ought to have been retired on 31.10.1990 on attaining the age of superannuation, i.e., 58 years. However, the railway administration, had allowed the petitioner to continue to work till 24.10.1994 on the basis of the corrected date of birth. 4. A notice was issued to the petitioner stating that he was allowed to work and draw salary for four years beyond superannuation and requiring him to explain as to why the corresponding amount be not recovered. Petitioner submitted representation and objections. Not satisfied with that, and by referring to Railway Board’s letter No.E.497.RT.1.1, dated 07.07.1999, the impugned proceedings were issued, requiring the petitioner to pay back Rs.99,994/-. As a matter of fact, the said amount was recovered from the gratuity payable to the petitioner. 5. The petitioner filed the O.A. challenging the action of the respondents. The O.A. was opposed by the respondents by filing a reply. The Tribunal, by referring to the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Radha Kishun case (1st supra) dismissed the O.A.No.108 of 2006. Assailing the order of the Tribunal, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. Sri Rahul Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Railway Board’s letter No.E.497.RT.1.1, dated 07.07.1999, has no application as the petitioner had retired by 1994 itself. Assailing the order of the Tribunal, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. Sri Rahul Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Railway Board’s letter No.E.497.RT.1.1, dated 07.07.1999, has no application as the petitioner had retired by 1994 itself. He further submits that as per the Railway Board Circular No.E(G)61-RT-11/2010, dt.02.01.1962, the employees are required to be issued advance notice, one year before their retirement and no such notice was issued to the petitioner. He contends that the authorities, who are required to maintain the records and the service particulars, and the petitioner being an illiterate had no role to play in maintenance thereof. He further contends that the petitioner was paid salary for the services rendered. The learned counsel would also submit that the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to by the Tribunal is not applicable to the petitioner’s case and was distinguished in judgment reported in the case of State of Bihar and others Vs. Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad ((2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 117). 7. On the other hand Sri. R.S. Murthy, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent-railways submit that in Radha Kishun case (1st supra), the Supreme Court directed that appropriate disciplinary action must be initiated against the officers responsible, in such matter, he urges that the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in the case of State of Bihar and others (2nd Supra) has no application to the facts of this case. He has also submitted across the Bar, a reply affidavit sworn on 24.08.2006 by one Sri P. Srinivasulu, Divisional Personnel Officer of the 3rd respondent. A copy of the Service Register with the heading ‘particulars of service’ is also filed. He submits that in the said Service Register the date of birth in the relevant column was altered 07.10.1936 by rounding of 07.10.1932 as per PFC No.23 dated 07.10.1953 and the same appears to have been attested on 04.06.1962. Learned counsel submits that the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity. 8. It is not a dispute that the petitioner was an illiterate man and was appointed as Trolley Man attending to the hard labour work. The service records and registers are always maintained by the railway administration and they were in their custody. Learned counsel submits that the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity. 8. It is not a dispute that the petitioner was an illiterate man and was appointed as Trolley Man attending to the hard labour work. The service records and registers are always maintained by the railway administration and they were in their custody. The petitioner addressed letter to the railway authorities i.e. letters dated 01.02.2003 and 22.04.2004 pointing out the discrepancy in the entry as to date of birth. The petitioner had also pleaded that under the Railway Board Circular No.E(G)57/RT-1-8, dt.07.02.1958, the General Manager of the Chief Personnel Officer has the power to regularise such clerical errors. None of the representations submitted by the petitioner were considered by the respondent-railway administration and in fact the impugned letter dated 28.06.2004, to say the least was laconic showing total non-application of mind. 9. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar and others (2 Supra) had distinguished the judgment reported in Radha Kishun case (1st supra) confining the same to the facts of that case. As evidenced from the copy of the service particulars furnished by the respondents along with their reply affidavit, the correction in the service record appeared to have been made way back in the year 1962 i.e., 22 years before the date of retirement. Even if the date of birth is taken as 07.10.1932, there was no fault on the part of the petitioner in continuing in service beyond the age of superannuation as per that date. If at all anything, it were the authorities, who are required to maintain the records, that were not vigilant enough. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer on that account. The Apex Court had categorically held in the case of State of Bihar and others (2nd supra) that in the absence of evidence of fraud or misrepresentation, salary already paid for the service beyond the actual age of retirement cannot be recovered. 10. As per the reply affidavit filed by the respondents, as on 24.08.2006 a sum of Rs.91,108/- was recovered from the petitioner and a further sum of Rs.8,886/-was yet to be recovered. 11. 10. As per the reply affidavit filed by the respondents, as on 24.08.2006 a sum of Rs.91,108/- was recovered from the petitioner and a further sum of Rs.8,886/-was yet to be recovered. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as on today the entire amount has already been recovered and prays for a direction to refund the amount recovered illegally, with interest at 18% per annum. The amount was recovered by the respondents from the gratuity payable to the petitioner. Considering the fact that the petitioner was deprived of benefit of money recovered for all these years, it is just and necessary that the petitioner be compensated, following the principle of restitution as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. MRF Limited ( 1996(1) SCC 597 ), we deem it appropriate to grant simple interest at 12% per annum from the date of recovery till date of refund to the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 08.11.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in O.A.No. 108 of 2006 and quashing the impugned letter No.P.500/Settlement/Appeals/110, dated 28.06.2004. Further, the respondents are directed to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner, with simple interest at 12% per annum within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand disposed of.