The Governor of a State has the power to make rules regulating the conditions of service of government servants, including the age of superannuation, and such rules may be made with retrospective effect.

( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, validity of a Government notification lowering the age of superannuation has been challenged. Ram Autar Pandey is the petitioner. The State of Uttar Pradesh and the District Judge, Mainpuri are the two opposite Parties.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was born on the 4th of May 1906. He joined service in 1929 in Mainpuri judgeship. He is at present occupying the post of Record Keeper in the said judgeship. Under rule 56 of the U. P. Fundamental Rules, it was laid down that the date of compulsory retirement of a Government servant is the date on which he attains the age of 55 years. By a Government notification issued on 27-11-1957 (hereafter referred to as 1957 notification) the figure 58 was substituted for the figure 55 in Fundamental Rule 56. According to this notification, the petitioner could remain in service till the completion of 58 years. It was expected that he would not retire from service till May 1964.

( 3 ) ON 25-5-1961, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh issued two notifications. By the first notification dated 25-5-1961 (hereafter referred to as the principal notification), it was laid down that the figure 55 shall be substituted for the figure 58 in Fundamental Rule 56. It was further laid down in the said notification that a Government servant shall be deemed to have been retained in service beyond the date of compulsory retirement till the date of the notification.

( 4 ) BY ihe second notification dated 25-5-1961 (hereafter referred to as the subsidiary notification), it was provided that Government servants falling in certain classes would be able to continue in service up to the 31st December 1961. The petitioners case falls under one of the classes mentioned in the subsidiary notification. The combined result of the two notifications is that the petitioner will have to retire from service on 31-12-1961.

( 5 ) THE petitioners contention is that he is entitled to remain in service till May 1964, when he would complete 58 years. According to him, the two notifications, dated 25-5-1961 are invalid. He has therefore, prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus restraining the opposite parties from enforcing the two notifications against the petitioner.

( 6 ) THE petitioner filed an affidavit. The Joint Secretary to U. P. Government in the Judicial department has filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of opposite party No. 1, the petitioner filed a rejoinder affidavit.

( 7 ) WHEN the writ petition was admitted by a learned Single Judge of this Court he referred the case to a Division Bench. It appears that the petition has been referred to a Full Bench, as questions of general importance are involved in the case.

( 8 ) IN paragraph 9 of the rejoinder affidavit, it is stated that the real reason for reducing the age of retirement from 58 years to 55 years is not to increase the efficiency of public services, but political reasons. No such allegation was made in the original affidavit filed by the petitioner. As many as thirteen grounds have been enumerated in the writ petition. But none of the thirteen grounds levies a charge of mala fides against opposite party No. 1. I, therefore decline to consider the charge made in the rejoinder affidavit that the principal notification was issued by the State Government for political reasons.

( 9 ) THE writ partition is directed against the two Government notifications, dated 25-5-1961. The two notifications may be reproduced here. The first notification runs thus : "whereas by Government of Uttar Pradesh, Finance Department Notification No. G-I-1733/x-534 (19)-57, dated November 27, 1957, Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules contained in Financial Handbook Volume II, Parts II to IV was amended with effect from June 17, 1957 (hereinafter called the said date) by substituting the figure "58 for the figure "55" wherever the same occurred and whereas the Governor of Uttar Pradesh has, with a view to increasing efficiency in public