Heard learned counsel for the parties at length for final disposal of the writ application itself.

2. In this writ petition, petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.6.1998, contained in Annexure-1 , whereby he was superannuated with effect from 1.7.1998 on the basis of entry made in his service book in which against the column 'date of birth' only year 1940' was mentioned.

3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Matriculate Constable on 11.1.1959 in the district of Bhagalpur. He passed the qualifying examination of writer constable in the year 1966 and P.T.C. examination in the year 1970. He was promoted to the rank of A.S.I. in the year 1972 and in the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1983. It is stated that his service record all through was good and in token of it he was given 80-90 awards. It is stated that about 80 constables were appointed with the petitioner and the service records were written and filled up by the writer constable and A.S.I. in the Police line. The petitioner simply signed the service book in good faith believing that it has been correctly written and filled up. On 30th June, 1998 the petitioner vide impugned order was informed that 1940 is mentioned his date of birth and that he would be completing his service tenure on 30th June, 1998 and was retired from service on 1st July, 1998. The petitioner on receipt of the said communication filed representation in which he claimed that in view of the principle decided by this Court regarding fixation of date of birth in such circumstance in C.W.J.C. No. 2990 of 1993 he has been made to lose six months of service more in force which is adversely affecting him financially besides pension, gratuity, provident fund benefits and thus requested for sympathetic consideration. It was also alleged by him that the column in the service book remained blank and some time afterwards some body has entered 1940 in the column of date of birth. A true copy of the said representation has been annexed as Annexure-2. However, he was declined continuance beyond 30th June, 1998, which resulted in filing of the present application. The petitioner in the writ petition has also claimed his continuance till completion of 60 years of his age on the basis of agreement between the representative of the employees working in the State and Government of Bihar, contained in Annexurt-4 in which one of the clauses is that fixation of service condition will be as in the Central appointment. According to the petitioner retirement age of Central Government employees is 60 years the implementation of which to the employees of the Bihar Government is being delayed and the petitioner has been made to retire prematurely.

4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of A.I.G., Police (Welfare), Bihar, Patna (Respondent no. 3) in which in support of the order, contained in Annexure-1 reliance has been placed at Rule 97(1) of the Bihar Financial Rules, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'. The said Rule provides that ".............If a Government Servant is unable to state his exact date of birth but can state the year, or year and month of birth. 1st July or the 16th of the month respectively may be treated as the date of his birth." It is, thus, contended that since in the date of birth column of service book of the petitioner, his date of birth is recorded as 1940 his retirement with effect from 30.6.1998 is valid and in accordance with Rules. As regards the agreement it is stated that it has no legal sanction unless the Government order is issued in this regard. According to the Respondent, there is no such Government order which allow the Government employee to continue in Government service till completion of 60 years of his age.

5. This Court find force in the said contention of the Respondent. Mere agreement did not create any right in the matter of enhancement of age of retirement of a Government Servant unless the Rule in regard to it is suitably amended. It is not