1. Leave granted.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. Undisputedly the Appellant was taken in employment of the Bihar State Electricity Board as a Khallasi in the year 1968. However, it appears, his service book was opened only in the year 1993 in which the date of his birth is recorded as 13.1.1946. The Appellant was allowed to continue thereafter. It appears, sometime in the year 2000, it was felt that in some cases the original service books were either not available or lost or there was tempering with the same. Since, it is alleged that there was quite a number of such cases it was decided to constitute a Medical Board to determine the age of the workmen. This is how the Appellant was also examined by the Medical Board in the year 2000.

4. According to a letter addressed to the Superintending Engineer, containing a chart with a column "average age" of the workmen on their medical examination, the age of the Appellant has been shown as 65 years. A perusal of the counter affidavit which quotes only the above letter, in which as a matter of fact, it is stated that the Medical Board was constituted in the year 2000. On being asked the learned Counsel for the Respondents could not explain as to what was meant by the term "average age" and how it was worked out. It can, however, be gathered from the contents of the said letter that it may perhaps be the age as may have been assessed by the Medical Board. The report of the Medical Board has also not been placed on record. However, on the basis of the said report it was considered that the effective date of retirement of the Appellant would be 31.3.1995, as a result whereof the Appellant was treated to have retired on 31.3.1995 and the salary for the period beyond 31.3.1995 was sought to be recovered from the Appellant. His post retrial benefit are also sought to be fixed accordingly. The Respondents, however, took work from the Appellant upto 24.4.2000 without any if and but.

5. The service book of the Appellant was opened in 1993. The Medical Board seems to have constituted and on the basis of the report of the Medical Board he was immediately retired. In these Circumstances, the learned Counsel for the Respondents has very fairly submitted that there would be no recovery of the salary already paid to the Appellant for the period from 1.4.1995 to 24.4.2000. The Appellant has actually worked during this period without there being any dispute about age.

6. So far as post retrial benefits are concerned it is submitted that they may not be admissible to him. We fail to appreciate the submission made on behalf of the Respondents in the background of the facts indicated in the earlier paragraph. The Respondents took work from the Appellant without any dispute. He would obviously be entitled to his salary and there is no reason as to why he should be denied the post retrial benefits. His total service comes to 32 years. We have already adverted to the fact that the medical report has not been placed on the record, nor as to what is meant by the term "average age", has been explained to us. In the totality of the facts and the circumstances of this case, we find no good reason to deny those benefits to the Appellant.

7. In the result, the appeal is allowed and order of the High Court is set aside and it is directed that no recovery of the salary paid to the Appellant for the period from 1.4.1995 to 24.4.2000 shall be made, as also submitted on behalf of the Respondents, and the post retrial benefits shall also be worked out accordingly.