( 1 ) BY means of this petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the orders dated 7. 11. 86, 12/13th March, 1987 and 21st November, 1986 passed by the respondents.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed as a junior clerk by the Secretary to the Development Commissioner, Kandla Port Project. The Kandla Port Project was previously under Ministry of Transport and then Kandla Port Project was converted into Kandla Port Trust and that Trust was taken over by the Central Government by an order dated 29. 2. 1964 on coming into force of Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. The service conditions of the employees were to be governed by the Central Government rules, but lateron regulations were framed by the Central Government and those condtiions were made applicable to the employees of the Trust. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant by the Chief Mechanical Engineer in the month of December, 1975. The Chief Mechanical Engineer of the Trust passed the order retiring the petitioner prematurely by an order dated 7. 11. 1986 at the age of 52 years and lateron the order passed for cancellation of the quarter which was allotetd to the petitioner in service tenure and that order was passed on 26th November, 1986 which has also been challenged. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Chairman of the Kandla Port Trust. The appeal was dismissed by an order dated 12/13th March, 1987. The petitioner has challenged the said orders in this petition.

( 3 ) AFFIDAVITS have been exchanged. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the relevant record.

( 4 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the compulsory retirement order could have been passed at the age of 55 years by an appropriate authority and not at the age of 52 years. It is submitted that fundamental rule-56 (b) (i) requires that a ministerial servant (who is not governed by sub-clause (ii) may be required to retire at the age of 55 years but should ordinarily be retained in service, if he continues to be efficient upto the age of 60 years. He must not be retained after that age except in very special circumstances which must be recorded in writing and with sanction of the local Government. Therefore, in view of the above provision, the question of premature retirement of the petitioner does not arise and the order passed by the authority retiring the petitioner at the age of 52 years is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the relevant rules and regulations and the executive order of the Central Government in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution of India read with section 29 (i) (b) (f) of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents contended that the fundamental rules are not applicable to the service conditions of the employees of the Kandla Port Trust as Kandla Port Trust Employees (Retirement) Regulations 1978 were framed with the approval of the Central Government and those regulations are applicable to the condtiions of the Kandla Port Trust employees. The learned counsel for the respondents brought to the notice of the court the relevant provisions of Regulation 4 (e) (i) of Kandla Port Employees (Retirement) Regulations, 1978 (for short hereinafter referred to as "regulations") which reads as under:" (E) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Regulations the appropriate authority shall if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interst to do so, have the absolute right to retire an employee of the Board by giving him notice of not less than 3 months in writing or 3 months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice- (I) at any time, after an employee has completed 30 years qualifying service". Thus, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the fundamental rules as referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the service conditions of the Kandla Port Trust.

( 6 ) I have considered the contentions of the l