The expression "Government service" in Fundamental Rule 56(c) includes service rendered in an ex-princely State.

JUDGMENT :

P.D. Desai, J.

An interesting and important question as to the interpretation of Fundamental Rule 56 (c) arises in this petition and the question has to be resolved in the context of facts set out hereunder.

2. The petitioner joined service in the erstwhile princely State of Morvi as a temporary clerk with effect from October 1, 1934. His appointment was in the Customs Department of the said Slate. He was then appointed as Accountant and made permanent as such on and from October 1, 1935. He continued to serve on the said post till March 31, 1948. On April 1, 1948, the United State of Saurashtra was formed by various covenanting princely States and the services of the petitioner were taken over by the new part B State. With effect from the date of the taking over of his services by the new State, he was appointed as Head Accountant and continued to work in the said capacity till April 1, 1949 when the Central Government took over the charge of the Customs Department from the United State of Saurasthra. The petitioner was thereupon absorbed in the service of the Central Government in the Central Excise and Customs Department and he was posted as a lower division clerk in the erstwhile Jamnagar Customs Collectorate and made permanent on the said post with effect from April 1, 1949. On and with effect from June 4, 1957, the petitioner was appointed to officiate as upper division clerk and he was made permanent as such with effect from April 21, 1962. He continued to work in the said capacity till November 27, 1971 and was retired on superannuation pension with effect from November 28, 1971 on his attaining the age of 58 years. At the time of his retirement, the petitioner was working in the Collectorate of Central Excise at Baroda and the order dated October 5, 1971 retiring the petitioner from service a aforesaid, which is at Annexure 'C', was passed by the Headquarters Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Baroda.

3. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the order of retirement and he made representation to the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda requesting him to allow the petitioner to continue in service up to the age of sixty years since, according to the petitioner, that was the age for his superannuation under the relevant service regulations. The said representation was made on April 6, 1972 and it was followed up by another representation made on June 25, 1972. The Chief Accounts Officer, Central Excise, Baroda informed the petitioner by his letter dated August 14, 1972, which is at Annexure 'A', that the Collector of Central Excise having carefully considered the petitioner's representations for extension of service beyond 58 years of age regretted his inability to accede to the petitioner's request.

4. The petitioner thereupon preferred an appeal to the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi on August 21, 1972. By a letter dated February 2, 1973, which is at Annexure 'B'. The Collector of Central Excise, Baroda informed the petitioner that after careful consideration of his representation, the Board had rejected the same. The petitioner thereupon filed the present petition challenging the decision of the appropriate authority retiring him from service on the attainment of age of 58 years.

5. Two contentions were urged in the main at the hearing of the petition. It was contended, in the first place, that the petitioner was governed in the matter of his retirement by Fundamental Rule 56(c) and that on a true interpretation of the said Rule, be could not have been retired until he attained the age of 60 years. In the next place, it was urged that if on a true interpretation of the said Rule, the petitioner was not entitled to be continued in service till the attainment of the age of 60 years on account of the fact that he could not be said to have entered Government service on or before the 31st March, 1938 since he was until April i, 1948 in the service of a Princely State, the said Rule 56(c) was violative of th