B.D. Agarwal, J.

1. Both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment since the writ petitions involve a common question of law.

2. Both the writ Petitioners are praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus so as to direct the Respondents to allow them to remain in service until 60 years of age as per FR 56 (as amended in the year 1998).

3. Heard Shri K. Ete, learned Counsel for the writ Petitioner in WP (C) 2006 (AP) 438 and Shri T. Son, learned Counsel for the writ Petitioner in WP (C) 2006 (AP 443) respectively whereas the Respondents were represented by Shri R.H. Nabam, learned Senior Govt. Advocate. Also perused the pleadings and documents placed with the writ petitions as well as in the affidavit-in-opposition.

4. The Petitioners' case is that before attaining the Statehood in the year 1987, the State of Arunachal Pradesh was a Union Territory since 1972 and during that period Arunachal Pradesh was governed by the laws and rules framed by the Govt. of India. After attaining Statehood, the State of Arunachal Pradesh adopted certain enactments including the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules vide Notification dated 16.02.1989. It is the case of the Petitioners that when the FR & SR were adopted in 1989, the superannuation age of Govt. employees was 58 years. However, in the year 1998, the superannuation age was increased to 60 years under Govt. of India vide Notification No. GSR 248 (E) dated 13.5.1998. According to the writ Petitioners, despite this amendment of FR 56 increasing and enhancing the superannuation age the State of Arunachal Pradesh has restricted the retirement age upto 58 years by way of issuing Notification dated 06.01.1999.

5. For ready reference the impugned Notification dated 06.01.1999 is reproduced below:

NOTIFICATION

It is hereby notified for general information that the provisions of F Rs-56, 'Chapter-X' (Sic IX) relating to 'Retirement' as adopted by this Government, vide No. FIN/E/47/07 (Pt.) dated 15th February, 1989 will continue to be applicable to all the Government employees of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh.

(P.K. Nandi)

Under Secretary (Finance)

Government of Arunachal Pradesh

Itanagar.

6. The aforesaid Notification has been assailed by the writ Petitioners basically on the ground that it has changed the service condition of the writ Petitioners more particularly, in view of Section 37 of the State of Arunachal Pradesh Act, 1986. It was also argued that since the State of Arunachal Pradesh adopted the FR & SR in to in the year 1989, the State is bound to adopt the subsequent amendments made by the Central Government without any exception. It was also submitted that Notification dated 06.01.1999 is not a valid Notification to exclude the benefits of FR 56 (a).

To buttress their submissions, the learned Counsel for the writ Petitioners relied upon a judgment passed in the Case of UT of Chandigarh and Ors., Appellants v. Rajesh Kumar Basandhi & Ann, Respondents, reported in AIR 2003 SC 3230.

7. Per contra, the learned Senior Govt. Advocate submitted that the State of Arunachal Pradesh is not bound to adopt the amendment and modifications of the adopted laws and rules and the clarificatory Notification has been issued on 06.01.1999 making it clear that FR 56 will continue to be applicable as it existed on 16.02.1989.

8. As noted earlier when the FR & SR was adopted by the State of Arunachal Pradesh, the superannuation age of Central Government employees was 58 years. It is also an admitted fact that by virtue of Notification dated 06.01.1999 the State Government has not proposed to reduce the age of superannuation from 58 years nor has it altered or modified the FR & SR originally adopted in 1989. Hence, in my considered opinion it is not a case of change of service condition. The only question that remains to be examined is as to whether the Petitioners are entitled to changed service condition applicable to the C