is it disputed that he continued to discharge duties in the College until 31st July, 2017. The counter affidavit itself records that he taught the discipline/application course in Physical Education up to that date and retired at the age of 65 years. 3. In fact, when the question of his pension arose, the College itself wrote to the University on 12th December, 2018. That communication recorded his redesignation as Lecturer, subsequent promotion as Reader/Associate Professor and the fact that he had taught the application course in Physical Education until 31st July, 2017. The College then requested the University to treat his case as that of a teacher, referring to the UGC clarification that the age of superannuation of an Assistant Professor/Associate Professor in Physical Education was 65 years. 4. The position changed upon the University’s communication dated 17th December, 2020. The University took the view that the deceased, being a Director, Physical Education, ought to have superannuated at 62 years on 31st July, 2014. Pension was accordingly directed to be fixed from 01st August, 2014, subject to recovery of the payment made to him for the period 01st August, 2014 to 31st July, 2017. Acting upon that communication, the Respondent adjusted ₹33,52,013/- from the pensionary dues payable to him. 5. Mr. K.C. Mittal, Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, submits that, irrespective of the dispute concerning the applicable age of superannuation, the salary paid to the deceased for the period during which he actually rendered services could not be recovered from his retiral dues. It is submitted that the deceased neither secured his continuance in service by any misrepresentation nor concealed any material fact. The College permitted him to continue in service, assigned duties to him and paid him
