JUDGMENT

RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. :— This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the appeal made in Letters Patent Appeal No. 145 of 1978 arising from the order passed in Special Civil Application No. 268 of 1978 of the said High Court.

2. As this case has a chequerred history spreading over decades, we feel that the relevant facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are to be stated in brief. The appellant was born on 15th January, 1909 and he obtained the Degree of Bachelor of Engineering (Civil). He joined the service of the erstwhile State of Junagadh in Saurashtra region on 1st August, 1934. While the appellant was in the service of Junagadh State, he was governed by the Junagadh State Pension and Parwashi Allowances Rules of 1932 (hereinafter called as "Junagadh Rules) which had been published in the official Gazette of that State and which were subsequently codified and published in the Junagadh State Account Code. Rule 241-A of the aforesaid Junagadh Rules provided for pension and Parwashi Allowances. The State of Junagadh was integrated into the State of Saurashtra on 20th January, 1949. Thereafter the appellant was absorbed in the service of the State of Saurashtra. The supplementary covenant which brought about the integration read with Art. 16 of the main Covenant expressly protected the conditions of the service of the absorbed servants and the protection was also statutorily recognised by the Saurashtra Ordinance 3 of 1949 read with Ordinance 1 of 1948. A proclamation providing a guarantee that the conditions of service could not be varied to the disadvantage of the Covenanting State servants was also issued in that behalf on 20th January, 1949 which was the date of the merger of the State into the State of Saurashtra.

3. Based on the decision of this Court in Bholanath J. Thakar v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1954 SC 680 wherein it was held that the rules as regards the age of superannuation which prevailed in the covenanting State which in that case was the State of Wadhwan, continued to cover those Government servants who had come from that State and had been absorbed in the services of the State of Saurashtra. The State of Saurashtra made the Saurashtra Covenanting State Servants (Superannuation Age) Rules 1955 (hereinafter called as "Saurashtra Rules") in exercise of the powers conferred by Art. 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 3(i) provided:

"A Govt. servant shall, unless for special reasons otherwise directed by Government retire from service on his completing 55 years of age."

4. After the integration of the Saurashtra State into the State of Bombay a resolution was passed by the Government on 7th January, 1957 applying the old Bombay Civil Service Rules to Saurashtra area. On 1st July, 1959 the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959, (hereinafter called the "Bombay Rules") were promulgated under Art. 309 of the Constitution. Clause (c)(2)(ii)(1) of Rule 161 is as follows :

"Except as otherwise provided in this Sub-Clause, Government servants in the Bombay Service of Engineers, Class I, must retire on reaching the age of 55 years, and may be required by the Government to retire on reaching the age of 50 years, if they have attained to the rank of Superintending Engineer."

The appellant was compulsorily retired from service under the above rule by an order passed by the State of Gujarat on 12-10-1961 with effect from 12-1-1962 when he had competed the age of 53 years. This order of retirement was unsuccessfully challenged by the appellate before the Gujarat High Court by a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Not being satisfied, the appellant took up the matter before this Court which by its judgment dated 9-4-1969 allowed the appeal and declared "that the appellant was entitled to remain in service until he attained the age of 55 years and that the impugned order directing his retirement was invalid and ineffective." This judgment is reported