JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for partly quashing the Memo No. 434 /Vi. Kaa. Aa./Adityapur dated 07.04. 2017 issued by the respondent No.4, whereby the petitioner has illegally and forcibly been retired from the services on 30.04.2017 at a premature age of 59 years and 09 months on the alleged ground of completion of 42 years in service. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for retirement on completion of 60 years of age as per his actual date of birth and to pay the interest for 15 months over the amount of GPF of the petitioner from 01.05.2017 to 31.07.2018 as per the applicable GPF Rules. 2. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed under the Bihar State Electricity Board to the post of Skilled Khalasi and accordingly, the petitioner had joined his services under the respondents on 29.04.1975. His date of birth 01.08.1957 as mentioned in the matriculation certificate was duly recorded in the service records of the petitioner. The service of the petitioner remained satisfactory and he was supposed to be made to superannuate on 31.07.2017 as per his actual date of birth, but illegally, dehors the Rules and arbitrarily respondents forcibly superannuated the petitioner on 30.04.2017. Aggrieved by the same, he has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 3. Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that an employee can be retired only on attaining the age of superannuation as per his date of birth as mentioned in the service record/matriculation certificate and once the respondents accepted the same, has to be acted upon and as per the service Rules an employee retires on completion of 60 years of age. It is further argued that no employee can be forcibly superannuated before his age of superannuation and as such, a direction be given upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel further argues that though the petitioner has received the entire retiral benefits, but the GPF amount has been paid belatedly, which makes him entitled for the interest on the said GPF amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner places heavy reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Vidhya Devi Vs. Learned counsel further argues that though the petitioner has received the entire retiral benefits, but the GPF amount has been paid belatedly, which makes him entitled for the interest on the said GPF amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner places heavy reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Vidhya Devi Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2001 (1) PLJR 627. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner had completed 42 years of service on 30.04.2017 itself and as such, rightly he was made to retire on the said date and there is no illegality committed by the respondents. However, learned counsel fairly submits that in absence of any counter-affidavit, he is not in a position to say that as to how the petitioner was made to retire on 30.04.2017 though he claims to retire on 31.07.2017. 5. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submission of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, the petitioner ought to have retire on the date of his superannuation on completion of 60 years of age. An employee can be superannuated only on attaining age of superannuation and cannot be retired on the ground of completion of 42 years of service, particularly in absence of any specific stipulation in the service rules that as and when employee complete 40/42 years of service, he has to superannuate. The case in hand, there is no specific stipulation that employee has to superannuate after completion of 40/42 years of service and as such, in absence of any specific stipulation Service Rules comes into play and as per the Service Rules, an employee has to superannuate as per the date of birth mention in service excerpts as well as matriculation certificate. As per the date of birth mentioned in service records/matriculation certificate, the petitioner is to superannuate on 31.07.2017 on attaining the age of 60 years and as such, no imaginary date can be fixed by the employer for making him to superannuate on 30.04.2017 and as such, impugned order is quashed and set aside regarding his superannuation on 30.04.2017. As per the date of birth mentioned in service records/matriculation certificate, the petitioner is to superannuate on 31.07.2017 on attaining the age of 60 years and as such, no imaginary date can be fixed by the employer for making him to superannuate on 30.04.2017 and as such, impugned order is quashed and set aside regarding his superannuation on 30.04.2017. However, as the petitioner has already retired two years ago, he is entitled for benefits of three months salary and as such, respondents are directed to pay thesame, within a period of six weeks’from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. So far as claim for interest on the GPF amount is concerned, petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation before the respondent No.2, the same shall be calculated in accordance with law and if it is found that the petitioner is entitled for the interest on the delayed payment, the same shall be extended to him, within a further period of three weeks’. Let it be made clear that if there is delayed payment on the part of the respondents, the petitioner is entitled for penal interest as well as statutory interest on the said part. But, if it is found that no delay has been caused, the petitioner has received the entire payment, he is not entitled for the interest and same shall be verified by the respondents and reasoned order shall be passed on the representation of the petitioner. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, writ petition stands disposed of.