JUDGMENT : Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Shri Chandra Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for petitioners and Shri Ravi Nath Tilhari, learned counsel for respondent. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution has been filed by Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway and other authorities of Railways assailing judgment and order dated 11.03.2016 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow (herein referred to as, Tribunal) in Original Application (hereinafter referred to as OA) No. 438 of 2012. Tribunal has disposed of OA holding that applicant-respondent (Kaushalya Nandan Sharan Verma) (hereinafter referred to as, applicant) is entitled to following reliefs: (i) He is entitled to salary for period 01.02.2010 to 31.01.2012. (ii) No recovery of salary paid during aforesaid period can be made. (iii) Recovery against aforesaid amount, if any, made is to be refunded. (iv) Applicant is entitled to pensionary benefit as due on 31.01.2010 treating the same as date of retirement. (v) All other retrial dues shall also be payable treating date of retirement as 31.01.2010. 3. There was dispute of date of birth of applicant. Tribunal has recorded a finding that date of birth of applicant is 01.02.1950. Applicant has challenged judgment of Tribunal to the extent date of birth has been held as 01.02.1950 instead of 01.02.1952 as claimed by applicant, hence to this extent judgment of Tribunal is confirmed. Now we shall proceed to decide the matter treating correct date of birth of applicant as 01.02.1950. It is also in dispute that applicant was allowed to work by petitioners till 31.01.2012 and during this period, for the work discharged, he was also paid emoluments as due. Later on, petitioners taking date of birth of applicant as 01.02.1950, observed that his date of retirement would have been 31.01.2010, passed an order on 10.05.2012 stating that Rs. 12,64,300/- is recoverable from applicant being amount of salary paid due to overstay in service after 31.01.2010 till 31.01.2012 and also issued a fresh pension payment order. 4. Tribunal has held that since applicant actually performed duty and paid salary for the work he had performed, same cannot be recovered but for the purpose of pension and other retrial dues, he is entitled for computation of said benefits treating his date of birth as 31.01.1950 and as if he retired on 31.01.2010. 5. 4. Tribunal has held that since applicant actually performed duty and paid salary for the work he had performed, same cannot be recovered but for the purpose of pension and other retrial dues, he is entitled for computation of said benefits treating his date of birth as 31.01.1950 and as if he retired on 31.01.2010. 5. This writ petition is confined to the question, "whether Tribunal has rightly held that Rs. 12,64,300/- being amount of salary paid for period of 01.02.2010 to 31.01.2012, can be recovered by petitioners or not?" 6. The fact disputed is that applicant actually discharged duties and salary was paid accordingly. Petitioners, however, relying on paragraph 1801 of Indian Railway Establishment Code (hereinafter referred to as, IREC) Volume-II, Clause (d), argued that the above recovery is legal and Tribunal has erred in taking a different view. 7. Para-1801 (d) of IREC-II reads as under: "(d) In the absence of specific orders to the contrary, every Railway servant shall demist service on the due date of superannuation. In case, for whatever reason other than specific orders to that effect, a Railway servant continues in service, beyond such due date, the period of over-stay shall be treated as irregular and the pay/allowance etc. drawn during the said period shall be recovered." (Emphasis added) 8. A perusal of aforesaid provision makes it clear that a Railway servant is contemplated to demit office on "due date of retirement" but in case he continues in service beyond such due date without any otherwise order passed by a competent authority, the period of overstay shall be treated as irregular and pay/allowance, etc., drawn during the said period shall be recovered. 9. The "due date of superannuation" is to be seen in light of Clause (a) of paragraph 1801 of IREC Vol. II, which reads as under: "(a) Except as otherwise provided in this Rule, or any other Rule or order for the time being in force, every Railway servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years. Provided that a Railway servant whose date of birth is the first of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of sixty years. Provided that a Railway servant whose date of birth is the first of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of sixty years. Provided further that a Government servant who has attained the age of fifty eight years on or before the first day of May, 1998 and is on extension in service, shall retire from service on expiry of his extended period of service. NOTE - The date on which a Railway servant attains the age of sixty years, shall be determined with reference to the date of birth as recorded in terms of Rule 225-R.1. read with administrative instructions there under." (Emphasis added) 10. The date of superannuation is the last day of month in which Railway servant attains the age of 60 years. Note in Clause (a) of paragraph-1801 clarifies that for the purpose of determining age of 60 years, it has to be seen as recorded in terms of Rule 225-R.1 read with administrative instructions thereunder. 11. Learned counsel for petitioners did dispute that as per aforesaid Rule it is the date of birth recorded in service book, which is to be taken for the purpose of determining date of superannuation. It is also admitted before us that on the first page of service book of applicant, date of birth was mentioned as 01.02.1952. This has continued till 25.01.2012 when a letter dated 25.1.2012 was issued by Divisional Railway Manager (P), Northern Railway, Lucknow for verification of date of birth of applicant. As per aforesaid date of birth recorded in service book, applicant, as per paragraph 1801 ought to have demit office on 31.01.2012. If subsequently date of birth in his service book is corrected or any anterior date is declared by competent authority of employer, in such a case, it cannot be said that Railway servant has demitted office on due date of retirement after determining his age as per date of birth recorded in service book. 12. We are examining the question whether date of birth of applicant was 01.02.1950 or 01.02.1952 in view of finding recorded by Tribunal against applicant and same has been challenged before us, but we find no material on record to hold that there was any infringement or violation on the part of applicant in demitting office on 31.01.2012 and on 31.1.2010. We are examining the question whether date of birth of applicant was 01.02.1950 or 01.02.1952 in view of finding recorded by Tribunal against applicant and same has been challenged before us, but we find no material on record to hold that there was any infringement or violation on the part of applicant in demitting office on 31.01.2012 and on 31.1.2010. His date of retirement as per date of birth recorded in service book was 31.1.2012 and this was in accordance with paragraph-1801 (a) of IREC. That being so, it cannot be said that there was any fault on the part of applicant in demitting office on 31.01.2010 and he continued to serve thereafter on his own. Date of birth, admittedly, was recorded in service book by petitioners and their officials and unless the same is corrected, same will hold field for all purpose. In this backdrop, we find that applicant renders service for no fault on his part till 31.1.2012 and, therefore, salary and allowances paid to him for the work he actually discharged from 01.02.2010 to 31.01.2012, is recoverable. In our view, in such a case paragraph 1801 (d) is attracted at all. 13. Learned counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment in Radha Kishun v. Union of India and Others, 1997 (9) SCC 239 in order to contend that since applicant has continued in service to work after his due date of retirement, salary, etc. received by him is liable to be recovered. The facts of the case in Radha Kishun (supra) clearly render the same inapplicable to the present case. Therein date of birth of employee was admittedly 13.05.1933. His superannuation on 31.05.1991, therefore, was in dispute as per date of birth. There was no different date of birth recorded in service book. There was no scope of any correction therein. Date of retirement was also certain, still employee continued. When recovery was ordered he filed OA before Tribunal, which was dismissed, where after appeal was also dismissed by Supreme Court. Thus this decision renders no help to petitioners. 14. This judgment in Radha Kishun (supra) has been considered subsequently in another case, facts whereof broadly were similar to the facts with which we are concerned in this writ petition. When recovery was ordered he filed OA before Tribunal, which was dismissed, where after appeal was also dismissed by Supreme Court. Thus this decision renders no help to petitioners. 14. This judgment in Radha Kishun (supra) has been considered subsequently in another case, facts whereof broadly were similar to the facts with which we are concerned in this writ petition. In State of Bihar v. Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad, 2009 (3) SCC 117 , there was a dispute with regard to date of birth of employee concerned since two dates were mentioned in service book, i.e. 11.02.1944 and 11.02.1946. As per 11.02.1944 date of birth, employee ought to have retired on 28.02.2002, but he actually worked up to 29.02.2004. Thereafter an order was passed for recovery of two years' salary as has been done in the present case. Pension was also refixed. These orders were challenged in writ petition before Patna High Court, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge, but in an intra Court appeal filed before Division Bench, employee succeeded and order of recovery as well as judgment of learned Single Judge were set aside. Thereafter, State of Bihar went in appeal. Supreme Court held that there was no case of fraud on the part of employee since date of birth was recorded in service book and no material was brought so as to record a finding that there was any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of employee concerned. No inquiry was conducted in this regard. Employee was held guilty of any fraud or misrepresentation. In that view of the matter Court held that no recovery of salary paid to employee for the period he has discharged duties and worked is permissible. Court relied on its earlier judgment in Kailash Singh v. State of Bihar and Others, 2005 (13) SCC 576 and Hari Singh v. State of Bihar, 2000 (10) SCC 284 . Judgment in Radha Kishun (supra) was distinguished by Court observing that there was no dispute as to the date of retirement of employee in Radha Kishun (supra) as there was no controversy with regard to the date of birth. Only one date of birth was mentioned and Radha Kishun did retire on the basis of date of birth so entered in service book, therefore, he had wrongly extended his service beyond date of his superannuation. Only one date of birth was mentioned and Radha Kishun did retire on the basis of date of birth so entered in service book, therefore, he had wrongly extended his service beyond date of his superannuation. But where date of birth mentioned in service book is different, situation would be different. 15. The principles laid down in Radha Kishun (supra), Kailash Singh (supra) and Hari Singh (supra) now stands confirmed in Constitution Bench decision in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), 2015 (4) SCC 334 wherein Court had laid down following circumstances in which recovery of salary already paid would be recovered. "(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover." 16. Hence, we find no manifest error in the judgment of Tribunal, assailed before us, so as to warrant interference in this writ petition. 17. Dismissed with cost, which we quantify to Rs. 5,000/-.