GULATI, J. :- In this bunch of cases comprising five writ petitions and two Special Appeals, the following two questions concerning the interpretation of Rule 56(a) of the Fundamental Rules have been referred for the opinion of this Full Bench:

"1. Whether under Fundamental R. 56, the age of compulsory retirement is 55 or 58 years?

2. Whether the proviso to clause (a) of Fundamental Rule 56 violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution?"

2. The answer to question No. 1, in my opinion, is plain from the language of the rule itself and does not need any elaborate discussion. The material part of Rule 56 (a) reads :-

"Except as otherwise provided in other clauses of this rule the date of compulsory retirement of a government servant other than a government servant in inferior service is the date on which he attains the age of 58 years." When the rule itself declares that the age of compulsory retirement is 58 years, it is not possible to interpret it to mean that the age of retirement is 55 years.

3. The contrary view expressed in Shridhar Prasad Nigam v. State of U. P., 1966 All. L. J. 153 : (AIR 1966 All. 560), in my opinion, proceeded upon the fallacy that the proviso attached to clause (a) of Rule 56 were"the other clauses" referred to in the opening part of that clause. There are four provisos. The last two are not relevant. Only provisos (i) and (ii) are material for our purposes. Proviso (i) reserves to the government the right to retire a government servant after he attains the age of 55 years by giving him three months' notice or pay in lieu thereof. Likewise, proviso (ii) confers a right upon the government servant to voluntarily retire by giving three months' notice after he attains the age of 55 years. Reading these two provisos along with the main clause (a), the Division Bench which decided the case of Shridhar Prasad Nigam, 1966 All L. J. 153 : (AIR 1966 All. 560) (supra) came to the conclusion that the age of compulsory retirement of a government servant continued to be 55 years as before, because a government servant after he attained the age of 55 years had no right to continue in service upto the age of 58 years and the government servant also could not be compelled to continue in service upto the age of 58 years. Clearly these two provisos are not the 'other clauses' referred to in clause (a) of Rule 56. The other clauses to which reference was intended were clauses (b) and (c) of rule 56 which provided for different ages of compulsory retirement for different categories of government servants. Clause (b) relates to the compulsory retirement of a government servant in an inferior service. Clause (c) is in three parts. Part (1) talks of the age of compulsory retirement of Civil Engineers of the Public Works Department, while parts (2) and (3) of clause (c) provided for extension of service of a Chief Engineer. The two provisos do not affect the age of compulsory retirement mentioned in clause (a) which has been fixed at 58 years instead of 55 years which was the age of retirement prior to the amendment of this rule in 1963. I am, therefore, of opinion that the age of compulsory retirement is 58 years. As there is no difference of opinion between us on this point, nothing further need be said about it.

4. As regards question No. 2, I am in respectful agreement with the answer proposed by my brother Pathak and hold that the proviso (i) to clause (a) of Fundamental Rule 56 violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

5. From the history of this rule it appears that the age of retirement of a government servant was raised from 55 years to 58 years in order to bring about parity on this point between the State employees and the employees of the Central Government. It is true that the Government has purported to retain the power to retire a government servant prematurely, but some indication should have been given in the rule to show the circumstances under which a government servant could be deprived of th