( 1. ) APPELLANT-DEFENDANTS have challenged the judgment and decree passed by Fourth Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in Civil Suit No. 10-B of 1976 dated 21st August 1978 in this Court, by this appeal filed under section 96, Civil procedure Code.

( 2. ) RESPONDENT-PLAINTIFF filed a suit against appellant-defendants for the back salary and other benefits, amounting to Rs. 15,240. 00 on 10-12-1974 in the trial Court. According to the plaintiff, he entered the service of the appellants-defendants in 1948 as a Lower Division Clerk. In 1960 he was promoted as Upper Division Clerk, and he continued to work in the same post till 10-12-1971, when he was retired. Vide order and letter dated 21-10-1970, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, intimated the plaintiff that he would be retired from the service with effect from 10-12-1971 and, therefore, he should avail all the benefits of leave due to him. Consequent upon it, the plaintiff applied for earned leave and other leave benefits to be given to him from 3-11-1970 or 11-12-1971. The appellant-defendants sat over this application upto 23-6-1973, and it was only on 24-6-1973 that the Standing Committee by its resolution (Ext. P-11) granted leave to the respondent-plaintiff for 720 days, i. e. , from 11-12-1971 to 30-11-1973. The appellants had retired the respondent from 11-12-1971 on attaining the age of 55 years.

( 3. ) MEANWHILE, the State of M. P. raised the age of retirement from service from 55 to 58 years, and this was made effective from 30-5-1972 (Ext. P-3 ). Consequently, the appellant-defendants by resolution No. 544 dated 23-10-1972 also raised the age of retirement of its class III employees from 55 to 58 years. The State of M. P. issued an order dated 30-5-1972 that those employees, who were entitled to earned leave and other benefits before their retirement and their applied leave was not sanctioned, during such leave entitlement, shall be deemed to be in service and shall be deemed to have been retired only on attaining the age of 58. According to the respondent-plaintiff, he, much before his retirement, had applied for leave benefits but the appellant-defendants sat over that application, which amounts to refusal of leave benefits, and, thus, he shall be deemed to be in service and cannot be retired till he attains the age of superannuation, i. e. , 58 years. He is, therefore, entitled to receive his salary and other benefits from 11-12-1971 to 9-4-1972. The plaintiff further averred that the appellant-defendants have, under the same circumstances, extended all the benefits to one Ramchandra Sharma, another Class III employee and retired him at the age of 58 years. Thus, respondent-plaintiff is a victim of discrimination and is entitled, on the ground of equality, to similar treatment and benefits as were given to ramchandra Sharma by the appellant-defendants, because they have contravened the Constitutional safeguards enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of india. He, thus, prayed for the relief of a decree of Rs. 15,240/- against the appellant-defendants.

( 4. ) APPELLANT-DEFENDANTS contested the suit hotly and repelled the contentions of the plaintiff strongly. They denied in their pleading that the plaintiff was entitled to be retired at the age of 58 years. They also denied that the plaintiff was entitled to any relief, as prayed for in the plaint. They, inter alia, contended that the leave benefits, as prayed for by the respondent-plaintiff before his retirement, were neither refused nor accepted; hence he cannot get the benefit of the amendment with regard to the provision of uplift of age. In the end, they pleaded not guilty to the charge of contravention of the constitutional provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16.

( 5. ) THE trial Court after framing the issues and recording the evidence of the parties, answered the issues thus :

(i) Appellant-defendants, by their resolution No. 544 dated 23-10-1972 raised the age of re