Judgment The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Sanskrit on 1st August, 1978 on temporary basis for a period of six months as per decision of the Governing Body of the College viz. Khalisani Mahavidyalaya. Subsequently, a second post in the Sanskrit Department in the said College was sanctioned on 21st February, 1980. The petitioner was ultimately absorbed in the said second post, which was sanctioned for the said College on 21st February, 1980. The service of the petitioner as a Lecturer of the said College was approved by the Director of Public Instruction, Government of West Bengal with effect from 7th August, 1978 and his pay was fixed in the pay-scale of Rs.700/- Rs.1600/-per month with effect from 7th August, 1978. Admittedly, the petitioner was paid his salary in the said sanctioned scale of pay with effect from 7th August, 1978. Fact remains that the petitioner was also employed as an Auditor in the office of the Accountant General, West Bengal on temporary basis during the period from 21st August, 1978 to 16th September, 1980. He also received salary from the office of the Accountant General, West Bengal during the said period. Thus, he held two temporary posts in two different organizations simultaneously during the period from 21st August, 1978 to 16th September, 1980 and enjoyed pay and allowances during the said period from those two different organizations. The petitioner claims that approval of his service as a Lecturer of the said College with effect from 7th August, 1978 was communicated to him by the Director of Public Instruction on 12th February, 1981 vide office letter dated 12th February, 1981 appearing at page 20 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State-respondents. He further claims that immediately after he was informed about the approval of his service with effect from 7th August, 1978, he submitted his resignation letter to his employer i.e. Accountant General, West Bengal and his resignation letter was also duly accepted by the said employer. He further claims that whatever amount he received on account of his salary as a Lecturer of the said College during the period from 21st August, 1978 to 16th September, 1980 was deposited by him in TR Challan Form No.7 with the Government of West Bengal on 4th September, 2010. He further claims that whatever amount he received on account of his salary as a Lecturer of the said College during the period from 21st August, 1978 to 16th September, 1980 was deposited by him in TR Challan Form No.7 with the Government of West Bengal on 4th September, 2010. TR Challan Form No.7 appearing at page 46 of the stay application shows that a sum of Rs.24,416/- was deposited by the appellant with the State Government. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner’s service as a Lecturer of the said College was ultimately approved with effect from 7th August, 1978, we are of the view that the petitioner cannot enjoy the monetary benefit arising out of his service as a Lecturer in the said College during the period from 21st August, 1978 to 16th September, 1980 when he was also in service as an Accountant in the office of the Accountant General of West Bengal and received the service benefit thereof from his said employer. The petitioner ultimately retired from service on superannuation with effect from 31st October, 2011. The long service which he rendered as a Lecturer in the said College cannot be ignored and the retiral benefit which is admissible to him on account of such long service rendered by him to the said College also cannot be denied. In our view, the present problem which has emerged due to his employment in two different posts in two different organizations during the disputed period between 21st August, 1978 and 16th September, 1980, can be regularised by modifying the date of approval of his service as a Lecturer of the said College with effect from 17th September, 1980 instead of 7th August, 1978. Thus, we hold that salary and/or other allowances on account of his service as a Lecturer of the said College was not admissible to the petitioner during the period from 21st August, 1978 to 16th September, 1980. Thus, whatever financial benefit he received on account of his salary and other allowances as a Lecturer of the said College is required to be refunded by him to the State Government. Thus, whatever financial benefit he received on account of his salary and other allowances as a Lecturer of the said College is required to be refunded by him to the State Government. We thus, dispose of this appeal by directing the Director of Public Instruction to modify the date of approval of his service as a Lecturer of the said College by approving his service as a Lecturer with effect from 17th September, 1980 instead of 7th August, 1978 as mentioned in the letter of the Director of Public Instruction dated 12th February, 1981 appearing at page 20 of the affidavit-in-opposition of the State-respondents and to calculate the amount of salary and/or allowances paid to him during the disputed period, which is refundable by the appellant and adjust the same towards the deposit of Rs.24,416/- which has already been deposited by the appellant, as mentioned above. It is however, clarified that if it is ultimately found that the deposit which has already been made by the appellant, is insufficient to satisfy the amount which he is required to refund on account of the salary and/or allowances which he received during the disputed period, then such balance amount may be adjusted against his retiral dues. The concerned authority is thus, directed to calculate his retiral dues after approving his service with effect from 17th September, 1980 and pay the retiral dues including arrear pension which is admissible to him as per law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of communication of this order. The appeal is thus, allowed. The impugned order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court on 10th May, 2013 in W.P. No. 207 (W) of 2013 is thus, set aside. Both the appeal and application are disposed of. Since the affidavit-in-opposition used by the State-respondents is not traceable in the file, let a copy of the affidavit-in-opposition which is filed by Mr. Rakshit, Learned advocate appearing for the appellant in court today, be kept with the record and the same be treated as original.