Hon'ble KOTHARI, J.—The petitioner-Banshi Lal S/o Mangilal Nai, initially appointed on 15.6.1973 as Work-charge Helper and later on promoted as Vehicle Driver on 4.7.1978 in the then Rajasthan State Electricity Board, now respondent No. 1 Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer (for short `Nigam'), had filed this writ petition in this court on 29.3.2003 for quashing of the impugned order Annex. 8 dated 22.3.2003, whereby, he was sought to be retired from the service upon achieving the superannuation age of 58 years on 30.6.1997 on the basis of his date of birth 1.7.1939 originally recorded in the Service Book maintained by the respondent Nigam. 2. While admitting the writ petition, the coordinate bench of this Court on 2.4.2003 stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 22.3.2003 and accordingly the petitioner continued to serve the respondent Nigam as per his claimed date of birth 1.7.1948 and retired accordingly during the pendency of this writ petition on 30.6.2006 and, thereafter, died on 9.11.2009 and hence the legal representatives of petitioner, his wife Smt. Shanti Bai and two sons, Gehrilal and Suresh Chandra were taken on record. The petitioner claimed in the writ petition that at the time of entry in the service in 1973, inadvertently his date of birth was recorded as 1.7.1939 in the Service Book and he claimed that the only evidence with him regarding his date of birth was his Horoscope, which showed his date of birth as 24.7.1946 and later on he also produced the Health Certificate Annex. 2 dated 2.8.1978 issued by the Medical Jurist of General Hospital, Udaipur with his representation dated 4.11.1996 for collection of his date of birth entered in his Service Book and accordingly the Assistant Engineer of the then respondent Board, Rail Magra determined his date of birth as 1.7.1948 and, therefore, he was due to retire on 30.6.2006 but the impugned order Annex. 8 dated 22.3.2003 sought to prematurely retired him w.e.f. 30.6.1997 and, therefore, he had to approach this Court by way of present writ petition. 3. 8 dated 22.3.2003 sought to prematurely retired him w.e.f. 30.6.1997 and, therefore, he had to approach this Court by way of present writ petition. 3. The respondents filed reply to the writ petition and vehemently contested this writ petition inter alia on the ground that the Assistant Engineer had no authority and power to determine the date of birth of the petitioner and no such correction in Service Book at his instance could be made without proper approval of the Chairman of the respondent RSEB vide Circular Annex. R/2 dated 17.7.1996 and the originally entered date of birth 1.7.1939 was rightly so entered in the Service Book and, therefore, retirement order Annex. 8 dated 22.3.2003 was correct and justified and deserves to be upheld and the petitioner under the interim order of this Court had wrongly been allowed to continue in service upto 30.6.2006, since the application for vacation of ex-parte stay order dated 2.4.2003 was not allowed and instead vide order dated 11.10.2003 the matter was set down for final hearing on 21.11.2003, but thereafter, for one reason or the other, the writ petition could not be heard and, therefore, subsequent pensionary benefits and other retiral dues also deserve to be computed only according to his correct date of retirement i.e. 30.6.1997 treating his date of birth as 1.7.1939 as entered in his Service Book. 4. The respondents have also produced the original Service Book of the petitioner before this Court in which the date of birth 1.7.1939 appears to have been entered at the time of preparing the said Service Book way back on 7.6.1975 with the same ink and later on the said date 1.7.1939 was cut off and 1.7.1948 was entered as the date of birth by the said Assistant Engineer (O & M) RSEB as per the Health Certificate issued by the Medical Jurist, as aforesaid, a copy of which is placed as Annex. 3 with the writ petition, which date was again held to be wrongly entered without the approval of the chairman and Managing Director, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitra Nigam Ltd. vide Annex. R/3 dated 27.3.2003 & the date of birth 1.7.1939 entered initially in the Service Book of the petitioner was to be treated as the date of birth for all kinds of service matters and accordingly Annex. 8dated 22.3.2003 order of retirement was passed. 5. Mr. M.R. Singhvi, Sr. R/3 dated 27.3.2003 & the date of birth 1.7.1939 entered initially in the Service Book of the petitioner was to be treated as the date of birth for all kinds of service matters and accordingly Annex. 8dated 22.3.2003 order of retirement was passed. 5. Mr. M.R. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Bhavit Sharma, appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that since the petitioner was not secondary school passed, therefore, he had no authentic date of birth certificate available with him and that is why vide Annex. 1 communication dated 29.7.1976, the then Assistant Engineer of RSEB had called upon him to submit necessary certificate for his date of birth and it was in pursuance of said communication, the petitioner supplied the copy of Horoscope showing his date of birth as 24.7.1946, copy of which is placed at Annex. 2 and vide Health Certificate (Annex. 3) dated 2.7.1978, he was found to be of 30 years of age at that time and accordingly the Assistant Engineer determined his date of birth to be 1.7.1948 vide Annex. 7 dated 11.4.1997 in terms of the Circular Annex. 5 dated 3.8.1990 of RSEB and accordingly the petitioner was due to retire on the superannuation age of 58 years only on 30.6.2006 and, therefore, the impugned order Annex. 8 dated 22.3.2003 seeking to retire him from 30.6.1997, which order was also passed after six years of the retirement date, compelled him to approach this Court by way of present writ petition and, therefore, the impugned order have been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without any contrary evidence on record, deserves to be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Singhvi relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. Binapani Dei & Ors. - AIR 1967 SC 1269 in support of his contentions that even administrative orders, which involved civil consequences have to be passed consistently with the principles of natural justice and the order of retirement based on certain disputed date of birth, without hearing the petitioner, was violative of principles of natural justice. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nigam vehemently opposed the submissions made at the bar by the learned counsel Mr. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nigam vehemently opposed the submissions made at the bar by the learned counsel Mr. M.R. Singhvi for the petitioner and urged that the question relating to date of birth raised at the fag end of the service career of the petitioner in the year 1997 and manipulating through Assistant Engineer & change of date of birth in the Service Book on the basis of flimsy evidence like Health Certificate (Annex.3) and Horoscope (Annex.2) was absolutely unsustainable and the entry made in the Service Book originally as 1.7.1939 as the date of birth of the petitioner was liable to be treated as correct date of Birth of the Petitioner for all purposes and on the basis of that date of birth, upon completion of 58 years of service, the petitioner was liable to be retired from service w.e.f. 30.6.1997 itself. However, since the fact of this change in date of birth came to the notice of the higher authorities of the respondent Nigam at a later stage in the year 2003, therefore, the said order of Assistant Engineer was reversed and with the approval of the Chairman & Managing Director of respondent Nigam, vide Annex.R/3 dated 27.3.2003, the impugned order Annex.8 dtd. 22.3.2003 was passed so that other retiral benefits could be computed accordingly treating the petitioner as having retired w.e.f. 30.6.1997. 8. Mr. Manoj Bhandari also urged that on account of ex-parte interim order of this Court, the petitioner was required to be further continued in the service upto 30.6.2006 and, thereafter, having retired, he also unfortunately died on 9.11.2009. He also submitted that the Circular Annex.R/2 dated 17.7.1996 had clearly required the prior written permission of the Chairman of the respondent Board for making any correction in the Service Book, which the concerned Assistant Engineer never obtained and the respondent Board had also initiated action against said Assistant Engineer but he also retired from the service of respondent Nigam and, therefore, said action could not be pursued further against him and on the basis of wrong order passed by the Assistant Engineer for which he had no jurisdiction or authority to determine the date of birth of the petitioner as 1.7.1948, the petitioner or his legal repre-sentatives cannot be held entitled to any benefit. Mr. Mr. Bhandari also submitted that the salary paid to the petitioner for the period he actually worked upto 30.6.2006 may not be recovered back by the respondent Nigam but the pensionary and other retiral benefits deserved to be computed only by taking the correct date of birth i.e. 1.7.1939 & correct retirement dated as 30.6.1997. 9. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondent Nigam also submitted that as far as Horoscope of the petitioner is concerned, even though the same does not have any evidenciary value, but assuming for the sake of argument that it is considered as an admissible evidence, the same also discloses a different date of birth as 24.7.1947 and not 1.7.1948, as determined by the Assistant Engineer and as far as Health Certificate of 1978 Annex. 3 is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Manoj Bhandari drew the attention of the Court that the same was no proof nor the age determination certificate and the said certificate was issued by the Medical Jurist of General Hospital, Udaipur on the basis of statement of petitioner himself, which is evident from para 2 of the said certificate, which says, "The Candidate is according to his own statement 30 years and by appearance, about 30 years". The said medical certificate, therefore, could not form any basis for computing the date of birth as 1.7.1948, purportedly on the basis of Circular Annex. 5 dated 3.8.1990, which stipulates that if the year of birth of an employee is known but the exact month and date is not known, then 1st July of the year should be treated as the date of birth but clause 4 of the said Circular clearly stipulates that if neither the year nor the month is known or date of birth entered in the Service Book is doubtful or having no base, the competent authority may at his discretion, refer the case either to the Principal or the District Medical Officer, of the Govt. of Rajasthan or a Medical Practitioner approved by the Board or Medical Board constituted by the RSEB and then the certificate specifying the approximate year, may be accepted by the competent authority under the Regulations. 10. of Rajasthan or a Medical Practitioner approved by the Board or Medical Board constituted by the RSEB and then the certificate specifying the approximate year, may be accepted by the competent authority under the Regulations. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents also urged that no such exercise was undertaken by the Assistant Engineer while making change in the date of birth in the Service Book of the petitioner and on the date of medical examination of 2.8.1978 about 20 years back, the Medical Jurist had merely stated that by appearance the petitioner appears to be of 30 years of age and, therefore, the Assistant Engineer could not take upon himself the job of determining the age of the petitioner as 1.7.1948 accordingly and that too this exercise was undertaken in the year 1997 itself when the order Annex. 7 dated 11.4.1997 was passed by the Assistant Engineer, only before two months of the actual impending date of retirement of the petitioner on 30.6.1997 as per the date of birth mentioned in the Service Book of the petitioner on i.e. 1.7.1939. Therefore, the said order of the Assistant Engineer was clearly malafide and passed for extraneous reasons & was based on irrelevant material and consequently the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Smt. Gulaichi (2003) 6 SCC 483 in support of his contention that correction in the Service Book sought at the verge of retirement, the Court or Tribunal should not normally entertain petition/suit filed by the employee concerned for extension of age of retirement on the basis of such correction and should be slow in granting interim relief. 12. I have heard the learned counsels at length and perused the record. 13. In the considered opinion of this Court, the writ petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. 14. There are several holes in the case set up by the petitioner. What was the occasion for the petitioner to seek correction in the date of birth in the year 1997 from the concerned Assistant Engineer, who liberally made such correction in the Service Book of the petitioner on the basis of irrelevant material and unreliable evidence, without approval of the Higher Authorities of the respondent Nigam. What was the occasion for the petitioner to seek correction in the date of birth in the year 1997 from the concerned Assistant Engineer, who liberally made such correction in the Service Book of the petitioner on the basis of irrelevant material and unreliable evidence, without approval of the Higher Authorities of the respondent Nigam. The Horoscope and the Medical Certificate relied upon by the petitioner are not only self contradictory and inconsistent as far as date of birth is concerned viz. the Horoscope mentions the date of birth as 24.7.1946, whereas, the Health Certificate giving the approximate age of petitioner to be 30 years as on 2.8.1978, is based on the own statement of the petitioner and only the approximate age as per the looks & appearance of the petitioner was given for different purpose altogether. The Health certificate prepared 20 years back on 2.8.1978 suddenly cropped up again in 1997 when the petitioner filed a representation upon the inquiry initiated about the date of birth and the concerned Assistant Engineer totally misapplying the Circular Annex. 5 dated 3.8.1990 very liberally and wrongly determined the date of birth of the petitioner to be 1.7.1948 and made correction in his Service Book without the approval of the concerned Higher Authorities, even though by that time Annex. R/2 Circular dated 17.7.1996 clearly required such prior & written approval from the Chairman of the respondent Nigam. No prescribed medical test for determination of age was conducted in 1997, nor the concerned Assistant Engineer referred the matter to the prescribed Medical Board or the authorities as required in Clause 4of the Circular dated 3.8.1990. 15. It is well settled that the entry made in the Service Book about the date of birth originally has to be taken as true for all purposes unless and until cogent and relevant evidence for such change of Date of Birth is made in the same in prescribed manner. Only the competent civil court in a properly instituted civil suit, based on relevant evidence can give such decree & the finding about the date of birth and the Assistant Engineer of the respondent Nigam cannot be said to have any jurisdiction in the matter to determine the age of the petitioner as has been done by him vide Annex. Only the competent civil court in a properly instituted civil suit, based on relevant evidence can give such decree & the finding about the date of birth and the Assistant Engineer of the respondent Nigam cannot be said to have any jurisdiction in the matter to determine the age of the petitioner as has been done by him vide Annex. 7 dated 11.4.1997, just two months prior to the date of impending retirement i.e. 30.6.1997 as per the date of birth 1.7.1939 originally entered in the Service Book of the petitioner. The oblique purpose in passing such order is, therefore, writ large in the present case. 16. The Health Certificate of 1978 (Annex.2) relied upon by the concer-ned Assistant Engineer is nothing but a physical appearance examination of the petitioner made 20 years ago in which upon his own statement, the age of the petitioner was stated tobe approximately 30 years and computing back, the Assistant Engineer arbitrarily decided the date of birth of petitioner as 1.7.1948 and accordingly the petitioner was continued in service even after 30.6.1997 and this malafide correction in the Service Book was not even brought to the notice of Higher Authorities for good six years when in 2003 the said mistake appears to have been detected and accordingly appropriate order with the approval of the Chairman of the respondent Nigam was passed to treat the petitioner as retired from 30.6.1997 as per the correct date of birth 1.7.1939 originally recorded in the Service Book of the petitioner, which has been perused by this Court and the colour of the ink of the entries originally made about date of birth with other entries also matches. Even though the date of birth 1.7.1939 originally entered in the Service Book was verified by the concerned Assistant Engineer at that time, as admittedly there was no proof of the exact date of birth and that date of birth i.e. 1.7.1939 was also given by the petitioner himself in the declaration and nomination form submitted by the petitioner himself with the respondent Electricity Board. Vide Annex. R/1 three documents have been produced by the respondent Nigam, as stated in the reply filed to the writ petition, namely; declaration & nomination form under the GPF Scheme in the year 1988. Vide Annex. R/1 three documents have been produced by the respondent Nigam, as stated in the reply filed to the writ petition, namely; declaration & nomination form under the GPF Scheme in the year 1988. Employees Family Pension Scheme filed in 1974 and application for RSEB Workmen Welfare Fund given by the petitioner in the year 1992 and in all these three documents given by the petitioner, he has consistently filled up his date of birth as 1.7.1939. These documents are not disputed and denied by the petitioner and, therefore, amounts to his own admission, one fail to understand what was the occasion for the petitioner to get the issue related to date of birth decided again in the year 1997 from the concerned Assistant Engineer, who appears to be hands-in-glove with the petitioner for oblique and unholy purpose of extending his date of retirement for about 9 years. Not only pecuniary loss was caused to the State & respondent Board and the disciplinary inquiry deserved to be held against the Assistant Engineer concerned, but as stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the said incumbent, Assistant Engineer having expired, the respondent Nigam failed to take any action against him. 17. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P.& Anr.vs. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya (2005) 6 SCC 49 held that the date of birth as recorded in the Service Book cannot be changed after a long period, particularly at the fag end or nearer to the date of retirement or superannuation. The relevant extract of para 6 and 7of the said judgment is quoted below for ready reference:- "Normally, in public service, with entering into the service, even the date of exit, which is said as date of superannuation or retirement, is also fixed. That is why the date of birth is recorded in the relevant register or service book, relating to the individual concerned. This is the practice prevalent in all services, because every service has fixed the age of retirement, and it is necessary to maintain the date of birth in the service records. Most of the State have framed statutory rules or in absence thereof issued administrative instructions as to how a claim made by a public servant n respect of correction of his date of birth in the service record is to be dealt with and what procedure is to be followed. Most of the State have framed statutory rules or in absence thereof issued administrative instructions as to how a claim made by a public servant n respect of correction of his date of birth in the service record is to be dealt with and what procedure is to be followed. In many such rules a period has been prescribed within which if any public servant makes any grievance in respect of error in the recording of his date of birth, the application for that purpose can be entertained. The sole object of such rules being that any such claim regarding correction, of the date of birth should not be made or entertained after decades, especially on the even of superannuation of such public servant." 18. Later and recent view of the Supreme Court in such matters is also to the same effect. In Registrar General, High Court of Madras vs. M.Manickam & Ors. (2011) 9 SCC 245 deprecating the reliance upon the vague medical certificates and Horoscope, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was constrained to dismiss the suit filed by the employee and while allowing the appeals of the employer- High Court of Madras, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "28. Change of date of birth is a very important responsibility to be discharged or there is a general tendency amongst the employees to lower their age and change their date of birth to suit their career and to lengthen their service career. In paragraph 6 of the judgment of this Court in State of U.P. vs. Shiv Narayan Upadhyaya reported in: (2005) 6 SCC 49 , this Court held thus: 6. But, of late a trend can be noticed, that many public servants, on the even of their retirement waking up from their supine slumber raise a dispute about their service records, by either invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or by filing applications before the Administrative Tribunals concerned, or even filing suits for adjudication as to whether the date of birth recorded is correct or not. 29. 29. Again in Para 9 of the said judgment it was stated thus: (U.P. Shiv Narayan Upadhyaya) 9....As such, unless a clear case on the basis of clinching materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the Respondent and that too within a reasonable time as provided in the rules governing the service, the court or the Tribunal should not issue a direction or make a declaration on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued or declaration made, the court or the Tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order.. 30. There must be strong, cogent and reliable evidence in support of the contention that the date of birth entered in the service records or in the S.S.L.C. certificate was wrongly entered by a mistake. 31. In State of Punjab vs. Mohinder Singh reported in : (2005)3 SCC 702 , this Court had occasion to deal with the evidentiary value of horoscope as proof of date of birth. It was held in that decision that a horoscope is very weak piece of material to prove age of a person and in most of the cases the maker may not be available to prove that it was prepared immediately after the birth and therefore a heavy onus lies on the person who wants to press it to prove its authenticity. It was further held that in fact a horoscope to be treated as evidence in terms of Section 32(5) of Evidence Act, 1872, it must be proved to have been made by a person having special means of knowledge as regards authenticity of the date, time etc. mentioned their in. In that context horoscopes have been held to be inadmissible in proof of age. 36. We reiterate the proposition of law down by this Court in the aforesaid decision in Mohinder Singh Case that a horoscope is a very weak piece of material to prove age of a person and that heavy onus lies on a person who wants to press it into service to prove its authenticity. 36. We reiterate the proposition of law down by this Court in the aforesaid decision in Mohinder Singh Case that a horoscope is a very weak piece of material to prove age of a person and that heavy onus lies on a person who wants to press it into service to prove its authenticity. We are of a firm opinion that Respondent No. 1 has failed to discharge his onus in proving the authenticity of the aforesaid horoscope on which reliance is placed. 39. The difference of age in the present case is also considerable, as it is 3 years, 8 months and 5 days. When we look into the dispute and the matter from any angle, we find that the judgment and the decree passed by the Munsif Court which is affirmed by the High Court cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. We hereby set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court and hold that Respondent No.1 has failed to prove that any change of date of birth is called for in the present case. 40. The appeals are allowed and the suit stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs." 19. Again in a case reported in the same volume of SCC in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Premlal Shrivas- (2011) 9 SCC 664 the Apex Court cautioned that change of date of birth at the fag end of the career has to be permitted only exceptionally on irrefutable proof and not otherwise. The relevant para 8 and 14 of the said judgment are quoted below for ready reference: "8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters involving correction of date of birth of a government servant, particularly on the eve of his superannuation or at the fag-end of his career, the Court or the Tribunal has to be circumspect, cautions and careful while issuing direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the service book at the time of entry into any government service. Unless, the Court or the Tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and that such a claim is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed or as per the consistent procedure adopted by the department concerned, as the case may be, and a real injustice has been caused to the person concerned, the Court or the Tribunal should be loath to issue a direction for correction of the service book. Time and again this Court has expressed the view that if a government servant makes a request for correction of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed by his employer, he cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth, even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. No Court or the Tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights (See: Union of India vs. Harnam Singh : (1993)2 SCC 162 ). 14. It is manifest from a bare reading of Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code that the date of birth recorded in the service book at the time of entry into service is conclusive and binding on the government servant. It is clear that the said rule has been made in order to limit the scope of correction of date of birth in the service record. However, an exception has been carved out in the rule, permitting the public servant to request later for correcting his age provided that incorrect recording of a age is on account of a clerical error or mistake. This is a salutary rule, which was, perhaps, inserted with a view to safeguard the interest of employees so that they do not suffer because of the mistake committed by the official staff. Obviously, only that clerical error or mistake would fall within the ambit of the said rule which is caused due to the negligence or want of proper care on the part of some person other than the employee seeking correction. Onus is on the employee concerned to prove such negligence." 20. The judgment in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. Onus is on the employee concerned to prove such negligence." 20. The judgment in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Smt. Gulachi (2003) 6 SCC 483 referred by the learned counsel for respondent Board was also to the same effect. The relevant para 9 of the said judgment is quoted below for ready reference: "The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove about the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book. In many cases it is a part of the strategy on the part of such public servants to approach the Court or the Tribunal on the eve of their retirement, questioning the correctness of the entries in respect of their date of birth in the service books. By this process, it has come to the notice of the Supreme Court that in many cases, even if ultimately their applications are dismissed, by virtue of interim orders, they continue for months, after the date of superannuation. The Court or the Tribunal must, therefore, be slow in granting an interim relief or continuation in service, unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated, but if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and thereby caused injustice to him immediate junior." 21. The Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Binapani Dei (supra) does not help the petitioner at all because the petitioner here was himself guilty of seeking change of date of birth at the fag end of his career in the year of his superannuation in 1997, but at this stage when the petitioner is no longer in this world having died in 2009, this argument of learned counsel for the petitioner about compliance with the principles of natural justice is of little help and same is liable to be rejected is accordingly rejected. 22. 22. Thus, this Court is of the considered and firm view that the writ petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed and the impugned order is unassailable and the correct date of birth of the petitioner, as entered in the Service Book originally i.e. 1.7.1939, has to be treated as correct date of birth and the order passed by the Assistant Engineer (Annex. 7) dated 11.4.1997 is liable to be quashed and order Annex. 8 dated 22.3.2003 passed by the respondent Nigam deserves to be upheld. It is ordered accordingly. 23. Accordingly, it is directed that while retiral dues and pension benefits etc. shall be computed accordingly treating his date of retirement as 30.6.1997 but the salary and allowances already paid to the petitioner during his actual service till 30.6.2006 under interim order of this Court will not be recovered back from the legal representatives of the petitioner. 24. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.