JUDGMENT

M. Jagannadha Rao, J.-Special leave granted. We have heard the counsel on both sides on the merits of the appeal.

2. The appellant was appointed as a Constable in the Police Department of the erstwhile State of PEPSU (Patiala and East Punjab States Union) which merged later on 1.11.1956 with the new State of Punjab. The Raj Pramukh of the State of PEPSU framed, under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the PEPSU Services Regulations, volume 1 para 2.28 thereof defines inferior servant as inferior Government servant as included in the list in Appendix 1. The said Appendix includes, among others, Police Constables. Notification dated 20.7.1954 (F.D. 1(2) Reg. 54) issued under the proviso to Article 309 by the Raj pramukh says that the following Note shall be added under Article 9.1 of PEPSU Services Regulations Volume 1 and the existing Note shall be numbered as Note (1):

"Note 2: The age for retirement of Class IV Government servants will be 60 years".

As per documents Ex. P3 (at points Ex. P3/1 and Ex. P3/2) filed in the trial court, the Police Constables and Sipahis were included in the list of inferior class IV employees. While so, the appellant w