The petitioner has been slapped with an order contained in letter no. 2101 dated 12th June, 2014, issued by Chief Executive Officer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Annexure4, whereby he has been asked to deposit the amount of salary for 23 months said to have been availed after working for the Corporation beyond his date of retirement i.e. on 31st January, 2012, till December, 2013. The petitioner admittedly was a Class-IV employee holding the post of Jamadar in the Corporation, in whose custody his service records did not lie rather it was in custody of his controlling officer who was also responsible for disbursement of the salary to the petitioner.

2. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has worked for the period upto December, 2013after crossing the date of his retirement on 31st January, 2012 and availed of the salary. In such circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court after responding to the impugned order at Annexure4 through his reply dated 24th June, 2014 Annexure5/1.

3. It is the petitioner's case that no notice of his retirement was served upon him before his natural date of retirement though such a system is in place in the corporation and more so when the service records were lying in custody of his controlling officer. In such circumstances, when he has worked for the said period, the order of recovery of salary for 23 months from the admissible post retirement dues without coming to a finding of any fraud or collusion on his part is not sustainable in law as well as on facts.

4. As per the respondents, who have filed their counter affidavit the petitioner is literate person even as per his own assertion and has been in service since his date of appointment on 5th March, 1971. He appears to have collusively continued in service beyond his date of retirement in league with some employees of the corporation. By the impugned letter he has been asked to deposit the amount paid in excess as salary, failing which the same would be recovered from his post retirement dues. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that show notice has been issued on an assistant of the corporation asking as to why action should not be taken against her for not initiating action for superannuation of the petitioner within time. According to learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner cannot avail of excess salary enjoyed in such a manner beyond his date of retirement. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radha KishunVs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors. reported in (1997) 9 SCC 239, in support of his submission that when a person has continued in service beyond his age of superannuation, the respondent-employer was justified in recovering excess paid salary from the admissible dues of the petitioner.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record including the impugned order. As the facts of the case referred to hereinabove disclose, the petitioner was only a Class IV employee i.e., Jamadar under the corporation and also under the control of the superior officer of the corporation who was responsible for disbursement of his salary as well. The petitioner as such did not avail of the salary on his own. The petitioner also did not enjoy salary beyond the date of his retirement without actually discharging any work till December 2013. The respondent have not brought on record any finding arrive at in an inquiry that the petitioner was in collusion with any of the employee of the respondent corporation or had indulged in fraud or misrepresentation.

6. In such circumstances, when allegations of fraud, misrepresentation or collusion, which are of a serious nature are not established against the petitioner who was only a Class IV employee and had admittedly discharged his duties even after his date of superannuation in conscious knowledge of the respondents authorities of the corporation, the impugned order to r