ORDER : The petitioner has been slapped with an order contained in letter no. 2101 dated 12th June, 2014, issued by Chief Executive Officer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Annexure4, whereby he has been asked to deposit the amount of salary for 23 months said to have been availed after working for the Corporation beyond his date of retirement i.e. on 31st January, 2012, till December, 2013. The petitioner admittedly was a Class-IV employee holding the post of Jamadar in the Corporation, in whose custody his service records did not lie rather it was in custody of his controlling officer who was also responsible for disbursement of the salary to the petitioner. 2. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has worked for the period upto December, 2013after crossing the date of his retirement on 31st January, 2012 and availed of the salary. In such circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court after responding to the impugned order at Annexure4 through his reply dated 24th June, 2014 Annexure5/1. 3. It is the petitioner's case that no notice of his retirement was served upon him before his natural date of retirement though such a system is in place in the corporation and more so when the service records were lying in custody of his controlling officer. In such circumstances, when he has worked for the said period, the order of recovery of salary for 23 months from the admissible post retirement dues without coming to a finding of any fraud or collusion on his part is not sustainable in law as well as on facts. 4. As per the respondents, who have filed their counter affidavit the petitioner is literate person even as per his own assertion and has been in service since his date of appointment on 5th March, 1971. He appears to have collusively continued in service beyond his date of retirement in league with some employees of the corporation. By the impugned letter he has been asked to deposit the amount paid in excess as salary, failing which the same would be recovered from his post retirement dues. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that show notice has been issued on an assistant of the corporation asking as to why action should not be taken against her for not initiating action for superannuation of the petitioner within time. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that show notice has been issued on an assistant of the corporation asking as to why action should not be taken against her for not initiating action for superannuation of the petitioner within time. According to learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner cannot avail of excess salary enjoyed in such a manner beyond his date of retirement. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radha KishunVs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors. reported in (1997) 9 SCC 239 , in support of his submission that when a person has continued in service beyond his age of superannuation, the respondent-employer was justified in recovering excess paid salary from the admissible dues of the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record including the impugned order. As the facts of the case referred to hereinabove disclose, the petitioner was only a Class IV employee i.e., Jamadar under the corporation and also under the control of the superior officer of the corporation who was responsible for disbursement of his salary as well. The petitioner as such did not avail of the salary on his own. The petitioner also did not enjoy salary beyond the date of his retirement without actually discharging any work till December 2013. The respondent have not brought on record any finding arrive at in an inquiry that the petitioner was in collusion with any of the employee of the respondent corporation or had indulged in fraud or misrepresentation. 6. In such circumstances, when allegations of fraud, misrepresentation or collusion, which are of a serious nature are not established against the petitioner who was only a Class IV employee and had admittedly discharged his duties even after his date of superannuation in conscious knowledge of the respondents authorities of the corporation, the impugned order to realize the amount paid on account of such salary does not stand to reason. Even otherwise if the respondents have taken work from the petitioner as Jamadar after his retirement, the respondent should not refuse payment for such work as it would amount to taking Begar which is not permissible under Article 23 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise if the respondents have taken work from the petitioner as Jamadar after his retirement, the respondent should not refuse payment for such work as it would amount to taking Begar which is not permissible under Article 23 of the Constitution of India. It also appears that though there is a system in the corporation that prior notice of retirement is to be given to an employee who is supposed to superannuate in near future; no such formality was undertaken by the respondent authorities. In the judgment relied upon by the respondent in the case of Radha Kishun(Supra), it appears that appellant had joined service in Tele Communication Department and he was to retire on May 31st,1994 whereafter he remained in service till 31st May 1994. In such circumstances, the stand of the appellant, Radha Kishun to avail of the benefits even after his retirement on the plea that he had worked till 31st May, 1991 was not accepted and a direction was passed to the respondent to take disciplinary action against all persons concerned for their dereliction of duty in not ensuring that the appellant retired on his attaining the age of superannuation. 7. In the case of State of Bihar and others Vs. Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad reported in (2009) 3 S.C.C. 117 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the judgment rendered in previous decisions by Apex Court including in the case of Radha Kishun (Supra), has held at Paras 23, 24 and 30 being quoted hereunder: 23. Without going into the question whether the appellant was justified after completion of two years from the actual date of retirement to deduct two years' salary and other emoluments paid to the respondent, we may say that since the respondent had worked during that period without raising any objection from the side of the appellant and the appellant had got works done by the respondent, we do not think that it was proper at this stage to allow deduction from his retiral benefits, the amount received by him as salary, after his actual date of retirement. 24. 24. Considering the fact that there was no allegation of misrepresentation of fraud, which could be attributed to the respondent and considering the fact that the appellant had allowed the respondent to work and got works done by him and paid salary, it would be unfair at this stage to deduct the said amount of salary paid to him. Accordingly, we are in agreement with the Division Bench decision that since the respondent was allowed to work and was paid salary for his work during the period of two years after his actual date of retirement without raising any objection whatsoever, no deduction could be made for that period from the retiral dues o the respondent. 30 There is another aspect in this matter. Although we have directed that the excess amount paid for two years to the respondent as salary cannot be recovered from the respondent, but we make it clear that for fixing the retiral benefits, the period of two years in respect of which salary was received by the respondent cannot be taken into consideration and the respondent would be entitled to fixation of retiral benefits as on the date of his superannuation i.e. 28-2-2002. 8. In the instant case, it appears that no such steps were taken by the respondents authorities especially the controlling officer under whom the petitioner was working on a Class IV post and no such notice of retirement was either given upon him. In such circumstances, if the petitioner has worked till December, 2013 after his retirement on 31st January, 2012 and there is no finding that he was in collusion with any of the employee of the corporation or had misrepresented or indulged in fraud in any manner, the impugned order dated 12th June, 2014, Annexure4 does not appear to be sustainable in the eye of law as well as facts . 9. Accordingly, the same is quashed. Needless to say that the respondent should release the admissible post retirement dues of the petitioner, however reckoning from his correct date of retirement as per his service record.