I.A. Ansari, J.

1. We have heard Mr. T. Son, learned Counsel for the Appellant, and Ms. G. Deka, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

2. The Appellant herein is aggrieved by the judgment and order, dated 28.02.2008, passed in WP (C) 438 (AP) 2006, whereby his writ petition has been dismissed.

3. In order to appreciate the issues involved in this appeal, it is necessary to take note of the case of writ Petitioner-Appellant. The case of the writ Petitioner was, in brief, thus: Before Arunachal Pradesh attained its Statehood in the year 1987, it was a Union Territory and, during this period, its employees were governed by the laws and rules framed by the Govt. of India. After attaining Statehood, the State of Arunachal Pradesh adopted, vide notification, dated 16.02.1989, some statutory rules including the Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'FR' and 'SR' respectively). When the FR and SR were adopted, in the year 1989, by the State of Arunachal Pradesh, the age of superannuation of a State Govt. employee was 58 years. By notification, dated 13.5.1989, as the Govt. of India had amended FR 56 and increased the age of superan