Ajit Singh; CJ.:-- Heard on admission. This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 12.11.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court, whereby he has allowed Respondent’s WP(C) No. 5545/2006. The Respondent served as Manager with the appellant in the Bardua Adarsha Ghani Kendra. His date of birth 15.11.1937 was also correctly recorded in his service book. The retirement age in the Khadi Board is 60 years. The respondent, therefore, in the normal course, ought to have retired on 1.12.1997, but he was made to superannuate belatedly after 55 months on 30.6.2002. And for this period, he was paid his salary. Admittedly, no misrepresentation etc. was made by him. In fact, the excess service rendered by him beyond 60 years was on account of lapse on the part of employer since the notice of retirement was issued to him only on 17.5.2002. In the notice, it was mentioned that since he had over served, the salary for the excess period will be recovered from him. It is to be noted that employees of Khadi Board do not get any pension. Therefore, after the respondent’s retirement on 30.6.2002, his Contributory Provident Fund, Leave Salary and other gratuity dues became due, but they are not paid for long period. Aggrieved, the respondent filed WP(C) No. 7764/2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 18.11.2005 with the direction to calculate the retirement dues and to disburse the same to him. Thereafter, his retirement dues were calculated, but Rs. 1,16,535/- was sought to be recovered, as 50% of the excess drawal for the 55 months extra service from December, 1997 to June, 2002. The Respondent was, therefore, constrained to file another WP(C) No. 5545/2006, which the learned Single Judge has allowed by the impugned order. As held by the learned Single Judge, there is absolutely no material to show that respondent either misrepresented or connived with any officer of the Khadi Board for serving beyond the age of retirement. In such a situation, the employer should have been vigilant about respondent’s date of retirement. The employer failed to serve any retirement notice to the respondent in the year 1997 and in fact, intimated him of his retirement, first time, 5 years later, only through notice dated 17.5.2002, where allegation of over stay was leveled. In such a situation, the employer should have been vigilant about respondent’s date of retirement. The employer failed to serve any retirement notice to the respondent in the year 1997 and in fact, intimated him of his retirement, first time, 5 years later, only through notice dated 17.5.2002, where allegation of over stay was leveled. Admittedly, the respondent has actually worked from December, 1997 to June, 2002 and therefore, he is entitled for the salary of this period. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.