Rule 2046 (2) (a) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. II, does not confer any legal right upon a Railway employee to be continued in employment after attaining the age of 55.

( 1 ) THE facts in this case are briefly as follows. The petitioner, first entered service as a clerk in the then Eastern Bengal Railway, in the year 1919. Upon partition of India, he opted for the Indian Union and was posted under the District Electrical Engineer Dhanbad. The petitioner was to reach his 55th year on 1-7-1950, and he will reach his 60th year on 1-7-1955.

( 2 ) ON 19-5-1949, the petitioner received a notice from the District Electrical Engineer Dhanbad, to the effect that it was proposed to retire him from service when he reached the age of 55 years on 1-7-1950. He was further informed, that if he wished to make a representation, it would be duly considered before final orders were passed. On 19-5-1949, the petitioner wrote to the D. E. E. Dhanbad requesting that his Provident Fund subscription and leave salary might be adjusted.

( 3 ) ON 10-6-1949, he replied to the notice dated 19-5-1949, stating that he was still capable of going on normally with his duties and prayed that his services might be continued until he reached the age of sixty. On 27-7-1949, the D. E. E. Dhanbad, forwarded the application to the Chief Electrical Engineer, Eastern Railway, with his recommendation that the extension might be granted subject to the petitioner being declared physically fit. Nothing however was said about his efficiency. The C. E. E. however was not disposed to accept this recommendation. He replied on 19-8-1949, stating that he saw no reason why a special case recommending the petitioner's retention should be made out, in accordance with the circular No. S. L. 1377. I shall have something to say about this Circular, later on.

( 4 ) ON 29-4-1950, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the General Manager through the proper channel, but this appeal was not forwarded, but merely filed. On 1-7-1950 the petitioner had to retire from service. Thereafter, the petitioner made a fresh representation to the C. E. E. for forwarding his appeal to the General Manager, but this was also turned down. In February 1951, the petitioner applied for a temporary job and was given a temporary appointment as a clerk under the C. E. E. for 6 months. On 3-7-1952, he wrote a letter to the C. E. E. stating that several other employees like himself, who had retired at 55, had been called upon to carry on their services upto the age of 60 years, and prayed for his own reinstatement. This prayer was repeated in December 1952. To this letter the C. E. E. gave a curious reply on 30-1-1953. He said that "in view of the recommendation given by the D. E. E. Dhanbad", he did not "consider to retain" the petitioner in service beyond the age of 55 years. It will be remembered that the D. E. E. , actually recommended the extension of the' period of service of the petitioner. In February 1953, the petitioner made a further representation, but on 11-3-1953, the C. E. E. finally informed the petitioner that no further representation of his would be entertained.

( 5 ) THIS rule was issued on 2-6-1953, calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not be issued quashing the order complained of in the petition and/ or why a writ in the nature of mandamus should not be issued directing the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner in service, or why such other order or orders should not be made as to the Court may seem fit and proper. The orders complained of in the petition are the orders contained in letters dated 30-1-1953 and 11-3-1953. These are really not the orders by which the petitioner was compulsorily retired at the age of 55. However, it is not necessary to consider this technical point, regard being had to the view I have taken in the matter. The petitioner is a ministerial servant and it is admitted that his case is governed by Rule 2046 (2) (a), Indian Railway Establishment Code (Vol. II p. 21) which runs as follows:"a ministerial servant who is not governed by Sub-clause (b), may be required to re