ORDER : T. Madhavi Devi, J. In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.1 to 3 in withholding the difference of gratuity, provident fund and family pension from the petitioner in spite of the amounts being released by the respondents No.4 and 5 as illegal and arbitrary, unjust and contrary to law, unconstitutional and an unfair labour practice and to further declare that the order issued by the respondent No.3 modifying the earlier order dated 31.03.2016 vide proceedings dated 17.12.2016 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to pay the difference of amounts payable to the petitioner with interest and penalty and to grant all consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent Corporation as a daily wage conductor on 11.03.1985 after selection by the Selection Committee and thereafter his services were regularized with effect from 28.08.1985. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Depot Clerk on 04.07.2011. The respondent Corporation issued a notice of retirement to the petitioner on 19.03.2012 stating that he would be attaining the age of superannuation on 03.03.2012, as his date of birth was recorded as 04.03.1954. According to the petitioner, he studied up to the SSC and in his school certificate, his date of birth was recorded as 04.03.1958 and therefore, there was a discrepancy with regard to the date of retirement. In view thereof, the petitioner filed W.P.No.9068 of 2012, questioning the order of retirement and this Court had granted an interim direction to continue the petitioner in service. While the petitioner continued in service, another proceeding of retirement was issued on 31.03.2016, observing that even if the date of birth of the petitioner was taken as 04.03.1958, the petitioner would retire on 31.03.2016. It is submitted that thereafter, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court vide orders dated 10.11.2016, directing the respondents to pay the pension to the petitioner by taking his date of retirement as 31.03.2012 and granting liberty to the petitioner to claim the difference in amount by filing a separate writ petition, if so advised. 3. 3. The petitioner claims to have made a representation to the respondent Corporation requesting them to arrange for payment of the difference in the amount up to 31.03.2016, as the respondents have deducted amounts towards the provident fund contribution and that respondents No.4 and 5 have sent the amounts payable to the petitioner towards the provident fund up to 31.03.2016, but respondents No.1 to 3 did not settle the same and have illegally withheld the said amounts. It is submitted that the employee’s share of the provident fund has been deducted from the petitioner’s salary till 31.03.2016 and the employer contribution was also made and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to both the contributions and also the pension and the difference of gratuity. It is submitted that in order to defeat the claim of the petitioner, the respondents have again passed orders modifying the earlier order dated 31.03.2016 vide order dated 17.12.2016, restricting the payment only up to 31.03.2012. Challenging the restriction of retirement benefits only up to 31.03.2012 and not up to 31.03.2016, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the submissions made in the writ affidavit and has placed reliance upon the following two judgments in support of his contentions: (1) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nani Gopal Dutta and Union of India and Others , in G.A.No.10611/1996, dated 09.08.2001; (2) The Uttarakhand High Court in the case of N.C.Pant Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , in W.P.No.1151(S/S) of 2004, dated 27.03.2008. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, on the other hand, relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 3 and submitted that while disposing of the writ petition, this Court has observed that the retirement age should be taken as 31.03.2012 only and that the petitioner was continued in service by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court and not due to his entitlement and that after disposal of the writ petition, the retirement benefits can be granted only by taking into consideration his date of birth as 04.03.1954. It is stated that the concerned headmaster of the school in which the petitioner has studied verified the school records and informed that his date of birth was recorded as 04.03.1954 only and taking the same into consideration, the petitioner was considered as retired from service on 31.03.2012 and the High Court while disposing of the writ petition also observed the same. It is stated that the petitioner has been paid the salary till 31.03.2016 and the order of retirement dated 31.03.2016 was passed only to discontinue the service of the petitioner as of that date since his services were being continued as the interim order in force and that the entire amounts due to him have been settled at the time of his retirement and therefore, the writ petition has to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also filed a reply affidavit to the counter filed by the respondents and submitted that the petitioner has contributed to the provident fund and therefore he is entitled to receive the employer as well as employee’s contribution to the provident fund and also gratuity for the period of service beyond 31.03.2012. 7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the date of birth of the petitioner is now admitted to be 04.03.1954 and therefore, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2012. However, he continued in service till 31.03.2016 by virtue of the interim order of this Court. Therefore, the question before this Court is whether he is entitled to pensionary benefits beyond 31.03.2012 and also for the period till 31.03.2016. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two judgments in support of his contentions. In the case of Nani Gopal Dutta (cited supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the case of an employee who claimed that he was entitled to continue in service until he attained the age of sixty years in terms of Rule 56(B) of the Fundamental Rules, 1922 and he continued in employment upto the age of sixty years pursuant to the interim order granted by the Court and he had received full benefits of salary and therefore, it was observed that the petitioner therein is entitled to the benefits of pension arising from the enhanced pay for that period of two years also. 8. 8. In the case before the Uttarakhand High Court, the petitioner therein was initially appointed as a Surveyor and thereafter, was transferred and brought under the control of the Irrigation Department of the State as a Junior Engineer and continued in the post by virtue of the interim order and upon his retirement, the benefits in the post of Junior Engineer were not granted to him and therefore the matter went up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered its decision in the case of Nani Gopal Dutta (cited supra) to hold that the petitioner therein is entitled to the post- retrial benefits of the post of Junior Engineer from which he retired. 9. Having regard to the above judgments, this Court is of the opinion that these two judgments are distinguishable on the facts in as much as in both cases, the employees retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and they were held to be entitled to receive the full benefits of their salary drawn on the date of superannuation. 10. On the other hand, in this case, the date of superannuation of 31.03.2012 is not in dispute, but the petitioner continued in service up to 31.03.2016 by virtue of the interim orders of this Court. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be considered to have retired on 31.03.2016. The petitioner is entitled to the benefits of salary for the period he worked up to 31.03.2016, but the post-retrial benefits have to be calculated by taking 31.03.2012 only as the date of his retirement. As far as the provident fund is concerned, the petitioner is entitled to receive his share of the provident fund with interest, if any. Therefore, the petitioner is eligible for all the benefits based on the date of retirement as 31.03.2012 only. 11. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.