G.K. Misra, C.J.
1. The petitioner was a permanent Government servant holding the post of Personal Aesietant to the Director of Industries. He attained the age of 55 on 15 July 1964. On 31 May 1965, a notice was served on the petitioner that he would retire from service on 30 August 1965. The petitioner challenges the order as being void and without Jurisdiction inasmuch as his case had been reviewed by the Government before he attained the age of 65 and he was not compulsorily retired.
2. The main point urged by Sri Misra is that after the petitioner attained the age of 55, he cannot be made to retire with three months notice as each a compulsory retirement amounts to penalty. Reliance is place on Rule 13, of (vii), Explanation (g) of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Ruler, 1662. The rule rune thus:
13. Nature of penalties.-The following penalties may. for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servent, namely:
* * *(vii) compulsory retirement;
* * *Explanation.-The following shall not amount to a penalty within the meaning of this rule:
* * *(g) Compulsory retirement of a Government servant in accordance with the provisions relating to his superannuating or retirement.
3. Sri Misra contends that Rule 13(vii) clearly lays down that compulsory retirement is a penalty.
4. The petitioner's compulsory retirement after the attainment of the age of 55 would not come within the ambit of such penalty if such compulsory retirement is in accordance with the provisions relating to his superannuating or retirement.
5. In two decisions of this Court in Batahri Jena and Anr. v. State of Orissa and Anr. 1969 I L.L.J. 40B and Somanath Misra v. Union of India (represented by Secretary to Government of india. Ministry of Home Affairs) and Anr. 1969 II L.L.J. 308, the provisions relating to compulsory retirement by way of supsrannuation or retirement have been discussed. It has now been firmly established that a Government servant can be compulsorily retired on or after the attainment of the age of 55 with service of there months' notice. Such provision has been declared to be valid. That being a provision relating to compulsory retirement, the compulsory retirement of the petitioner with three months' notice after the attainment of the age of 55 goes out of the purview of compulsory retirement within the meaning of Rule 13(vii), and as such is not a penalty, Sri Misra's contention is in a different form to challenge the correctness of the two Division Bench decisions. We find no sub-stance in this contention.
6. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.
R.N. Misra, J.
7. I agree.