Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:44354 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18460 of 2024 Petitioner :- Devpal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner earlier approached this Court for quashing of the order dated 31.01.2023 where by he had been made to retire. This Court had earlier directed for production of original service record of the petitioner and after perusal of the original service record, vide order dated 02.12.2024 the Court held thus: "1. Case called out. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not present whereas learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents is present. 2. This Court vide order dated 25.11.2024 has directed the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to provide original service records of petitioner before the Court. 3. In compliance of the said order, learned Standing Counsel has produced original service records of the petitioner along with application form initially filled at the time of appointment. 4. In both the documents, date of birth of petitioner is mentioned as 08.01.1963 and both the documents are having no cutting or overwriting. 5. Learned Standing Counsel pointed out that age of retirement in the department is 60 years, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 6. As learned counsel for the petitioner is not present today, therefore, Court is not deciding the case on merits. 7. Original service records of petitioner is returned to learned Standing Counsel for the State. 8. Put up this case on 09.12.2024 as fresh amongst top 10 cases. 9. It is made clear that on the next date fixed, the Court shall decide the case on merits in first call." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per original records he would be retiring on 31.01.2023 upon attaining the age of 60 years however he is aggrieved for non payment of the salary for the period he has discharged duty beyond 31.01.2023 for a period of one month. 4. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner's name since was not deleted from the data contained in the computer therefore this anomaly has occurred and he has been permitted to discharge his duties but since he has already attained the age of superannuation he may be paid salary as per relevant service rules. 5. In the considered view of the Court, State is a model employer and such mistake if occurred by the applicants of State, State is to be blamed only. The petitioner's claim for the payment of salary for the excess period when he admittedly discharged his duties with the respondent, is liable to be allowed through recovery thereof, subsequently may be directed from the salary of the officer concerned who had permitted petitioner to discharge his duties officially after fixing his liability. 6. Accordingly this petition stands disposed of with direction to the respondent no.3 to make payment of salary to the petitioner for the period he has admittedly discharged his duties with the respondent establishment. The payment shall be made only for the excess period he discharged his duties without any interest. 7. It is however, left open for the State Government to recover the amount from the erring official for whose mistake the petitioner was permitted to discharge his duties. 8. With these above observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 1.4.2025 Deepika Digitally signed by :- DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad