S. Muralidhar, J.

This is a suit for declaration that an order dated 4th July 2006 passed by the defendants terminating the services of plaintiff is liable to be set aside with all consequential benefits. The plaintiff has also claimed Rs. 1 crore as damages together with interest at 24% p.a. with effect from the date of filing of the suit.

2. By an order dated 11th April 2008 this Court permitted the plaintiff to amend the prayer clause for a declaration that Clause 8 of the appointment letter dated 11th July 1997 is void u/s 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

3. After completion of pleadings, this Court by an order dated 26th November 2008 framed the issues. The first issue was whether Clause 8 of the appointment letter dated 11th July 1997 is null and void in view of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The court further directed that this issue should be treated as a preliminary issue. The submissions of counsel for the parties have been heard on this issue.

4. Counsel for the plaintiff refers to the appointment letter dated 11th July 1997 and in particular Clauses 7 and 8 which read as under:

7. Superannuation: You wil