JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Shri N. Umakanta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri K. Jagat, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents and Shri S. Rupachandra, learned ASG for the respondent No. 4. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the praying for setting aside the decision of the State Government not to extend the service of the petitioner for the period from 01-09-2010 to 28-07-2011 as reflected in the impugned letter dated 31-10-2013 and for issuing a direction to the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 3,14,186/- (rupees three lakh fourteen thousand one hundred and eighty six) deducted from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. 3.1 According to the petitioner, on the recommendation of the Managing Committee, Chadong Seihomphung Aided Junior Boys’ School, Ukhrul, the petitioner was appointed as a Matriculate Teacher vide order dated 28-05-1971 issued by the then District Education Officer, Manipur East District, Ukhrul and consequently, he joined the service and started rendering his service. While the petitioner was rendering his service, the Chadong Seihomphung Aided Jr. Boys’ School was taken over by the Government of Manipur vide order dated 08-01-1979 issued by the then Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur and in consequence thereof, the petitioner’s service was absorbed and appointed as a regular Government teacher namely Assistant Teacher. After having worked as Assistant Teacher for some years, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Master vide Government order dated 06-02-2003 and was transferred at Laitongjam Awang Primary School. After having worked as Head Master at Laitongjam Awang Primary School for some years, he was transferred and posted at Chadong Seihomphung Aided Jr. Boys’ School. As per the Date of Birth furnished by the petitioner, he was to retire on 31-08-2010 on attaining the age of superannuation and since the petitioner was to retire on 31-08-2010, the process appeared to have been initiated by the authorities for the preparation of a termination order. But before the termination order was issued, it was instructed by the authorities that his service would be continued in contemplation of the Government policy of extending the year of superannuation from 59 to 60 years and accordingly, the petitioner was instructed to continue rendering his service on the ground of exigency of service and in fact, the petitioner had rendered his service beyond 31-08-2010 till 28-07-2011. 3.2 It so happened that the order of extending the age of superannuation was issued only on 29-11-2010 and by then, the petitioner had already continued to render his service as Head Master of Chadong Jr. High School and no Government order terminating his service was issued till then. It was only on 28-07-2011, an order was issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur terminating the petitioner from service w.e.f. 31-08-2010. 3.3 As the authorities failed to finalise his retrial benefits, the petitioner approached the then Hon’ble Gauahti High Court, Imphal Bench by way of a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 627 of 2012 praying for direction to the authorities to finalise and release his retiral benefits. In view of the court’s order for the release of the petitioner’s retiral benefits, the authorities started processing for payment of his retiral benefits and for that purpose, the Additional Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur vide its letter dated 23-09-2013 sought for certain details from the Zonal Education Office, Ukhrul who in turn submitted the said details vide its letter dated 17-10-2013 stating therein that due to certain confusion regarding the petitioner’s retirement, his service was utilized upto 28-07-2011 and was paid his salary upto 30-06-2011 and thus the petitioner had drawn salary for an amount of Rs. 3,14,186/- and on the basis of the said report of the Zonal Education Office, Ukhrul, the Director of Education(S), Government of Manipur vide its letter dated 31-10-2013 the Accountant General, Manipur to expedite the petitioner’s case stating therein that although the petitioner’s service was utilized upto 28-07-2011 and his salary paid upto 30-6-2011, his service had not been extended beyond 31-08-2010. 3.4 On the request made by the petitioner once again to authorities to release his retiral benefits vide his application dated 11-11-2013 which was duly received by the authority concerned and on the basis of the said application, the Under Secretary (Finance), Government of Manipur addressed a letter dated 05-12-2013 to the Principal Secretary (S), Government of Manipur to examine minutely the petitioner’s case and take appropriate action. In the meantime, the petitioner was given his retiral benefits including monthly pension after deducting the alleged excess salary amount of Rs. 3,14,186/-. Being aggrieved by the said letter dated 31-10-2013, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. The respondent Nos. In the meantime, the petitioner was given his retiral benefits including monthly pension after deducting the alleged excess salary amount of Rs. 3,14,186/-. Being aggrieved by the said letter dated 31-10-2013, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 namely the Administrative Department and the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur did not contest the writ petition but an affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondent No. 3 was filed stating therein that since there was no record of extension of the petitioner’s service beyond the date of retirement, the payment of salary and allowances beyond the date of superannuation would not be regular and no information whether the petitioner belonged to the State service or the District Council was not made available to it by the Administrative Department. The stand of the respondent No. 4, indicated in its affidavit, was that on the information furnished by the Director of Education (S) vide its letter dated 31-10-2013 showing an excess amount of Rs. 3,14,186/-, its office had settled the case making recovery of the excess amount of pay and allowances and it had nothing to do with the issue relating to extension of service. 5. The issue that arise for consideration by this court is as to whether the recovery of alleged excess amount of Rs. 3,14,186/- being the pay and allowances drawn by the petitioner for the service rendered by him beyond the date of superannuation in contemplation of the extension of the age of superannuation, was proper, permissible and legal. Shri N. Umakanta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid recovery of alleged excess amount was arbitrary and illegal; that it was paid to the petitioner for the service rendered by him as per the instruction given to him by the then Additional Director, Education (S) and the alleged excess amount could not be attributed to the misrepresentation or fraud being played by him. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana & ors. reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 wherein the appellant was allowed to enjoy the pay scale of Rs. 700-1600/- on the ground of alleged relaxation of educational qualification, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “5. State of Haryana & ors. reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 wherein the appellant was allowed to enjoy the pay scale of Rs. 700-1600/- on the ground of alleged relaxation of educational qualification, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “5. Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation the appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of the higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant. The principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply to the scales prescribed by the University Grants Commission. The appeal is allowed partly without any order as to costs.” Further, reliance has been made on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir & ors. Vs. State of Bihar & ors. reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 wherein various issues arose and one of which was as to whether excess payment already made to the appellants therein and similarly situated employees, should be permitted to be recovered by the State Government or not, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. 58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana1, Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, Union of India v. M. Bhaskar, V. Gangaram v. Director, Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Govt. of India, Purshottam Lal Das v. State of Bihar, Punjab National Bank v. Manjeet Singh and Bihar SEB v. Bijay Bhadur.” 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was to retire on 31-08-2010 on attaining the age of superannuation for which the Administrative Department namely the Department of Education was required to issue a termination order. It is averred in the writ petition that the process appeared to have been initiated for that purpose but since, at that point of time, a policy decision was under consideration that the age of superannuation be extended from 59 to 60 years, the petitioner was instructed by the then Additional Director, Education (S) to continue to render his service and in fact, the petitioner had served upto 28-07-2011 and was paid his pay and allowance upto 30-6-2011. It may be noted that the order of extending the age of superannuation was issued by the State Government on 29-11-2010. The aforesaid averments have not been denied by the respondents in their affidavits nor have they stated therein that the said excess amount had been paid on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. The only stand taken by the respondent No. 3 is that there was no any order issued by the State Government extending the service of the petitioner beyond the date of retirement. The only stand taken by the respondent No. 3 is that there was no any order issued by the State Government extending the service of the petitioner beyond the date of retirement. It is no doubt true that there was no such order but it could not be the ground for denying the pay and allowance to the petitioner for the service rendered by him and that too, at the instruction of the then Additional Director, Education (S), Government of Manipur. Moreover, there is no any reason as to why the petitioner be denied his pay and allowances due to the lapse on the part of the State respondents. There is no material on record to show that the State Government has taken any action against the officials who are responsible for non-issuance of termination order. If the State Government really decided that no extension could be granted at all to the petitioner, they could have issued the termination order in time and at least, on 29-11-2010 when the Government order of extension of the age of superannuation from 59 to 60 years was issued by the State Government so that the petitioner could have been stopped from continuance of rendering his service and the present problem could have been avoided. 7. For the reasons stated herein above, the writ petition allowed and consequently, the letter dated 31-10-2013 is quashed with the direction that the respondents shall refund the amount of Rs. 3,14,186/- to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order, failing which the said amount shall accrue interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the expiry of the said three months till the date of payment. There shall be no order as to cost.