JUDGMENT : Panigrahi, C.J. - The Petitioner joined Mayurbhanj State Service as a Forest Ranger in the year 1919 and was serving as its Chief Forest Officer on the date of its merger with the Province of Orissa, namely the 1st January 1949. After the merger he continued to serve under the Government of Orissa as a Divisional Forest Officer. On the 18th October, 1951 he was served with a notice by the Government of Orissa, calling upon him to retire from 16th June, 1952, the date, on which he attained his 55th year. On the date of merger the Petitioner was drawing a salary of Rs. 500/- per month, and after merger his initial salary was fixed at Rs. 510/-. Subsequently this was raised to Rs. 535/- and in addition he was allowed to draw dearness allowance of Rs. 40/. This enhancement was ordered by Government with a view to compensate the Petitioner for the loss of free residential accommodation to which he had been entitled under the Mayurbhanj Service Regulations. The Petitioner's complaint is that under the Mayurbhanj State Service Regulations he was entitled' to continue in service till his 60th year and that as a consequence of his compulsory retirement on his attaining his 55th year he has been put to a pecuniary loss of Rs. 33,000/- and odd. 2. The Petitioner has based his claim on Rule 67 of the Mayurbhanj Service "Regulations and on the convenient in paragraph 8 of the Major Agreement entered into between the Ruler of Mayurbhanj and the Government of India. Rule 67 of the Mayurbhanj Service. Regulations lays down that all State servants in superior service shall compulsorily retire on attaining the age of 60 years unless extension of service is granted to them by the State. In no case, however, shall the extension exceed five years. Paragraph 8 of the Merger Agreement says: The Government of India hereby guarantees either the continuance in service of the permanent members of the public services of Mayurbhanj on conditions which will be less advantageous than those on which they were serving before the date on which the administration of Mayurbhanj is made over to the Government of India, or the payment of reasonable compensation. The Petitioner accordingly prays that the State of Orissa should be directed to reinstate him in service till his 60th year, or in the alternative the opposite party should be asked to show Cause why the compensation claimed by him should not be paid to him. 3. The Case for the opposite party is that after integration of the State of Mayurbhanj with the province of Orissa, all the ex-State employees were asked to sign an employment form signifying their willingness to accept service under the Provincial Government of Orissa which is governed by the provisions of the Orissa Service Code. Subsequently on the 17th August, 1950 Government of Orissa in the Finance Department issued a Circular No. 11590 (38) stating that after careful consideration Government had decided that the date of compulsory retirement of all ex-Mayurbhanj employees in superior service, including those who entered Service before 1st April, 1938, should be the date on which they attain the age of 55 years, and that extension of service might, however, be granted in suitable cases, under Rule 71 of the Orissa Service Code. Any employee who felt aggrieved by this decision was given the option to ask for being released from service and claim reasonable compensation if he considered that on the whole his conditions of service were made, less advantageous, and that such claim would be considered on merits. The Petitioner signed the employment form expressing his willingness to accept service under the Govt. of Orissa. Even after the issue of the Circular of the Finance Department he did not avail of the option given to him to apply for release and claim compensation on the ground that he felt aggrieved by the decision given therein. On 18th October, 1951, a few months before his retirement, he was served with a notice by Government that he was due to superannuate in June, 1952. He then moved Government by a petition dated 12th November, 1951, praying for extension of service for five years beyond his 55th year, or in the alternative for extension of service for that period "on annual review of extension beyond that age". He then moved Government by a petition dated 12th November, 1951, praying for extension of service for five years beyond his 55th year, or in the alternative for extension of service for that period "on annual review of extension beyond that age". It is apparent therefore that even though he was aware of the Circular letter fixing the age of retirement at 55, he did not choose to apply for release on payment of compensation, but merely prayed for extension under Rule 71 of he Orissa Service Code. This petition was rejected. By another petition dated 28th February, 1952, he again prayed for extension of service for three years. This too met with the same fate. Thereafter he put forward his claim for compensation, basing his case on the C covenant in the Merger Agreement and the Mayurbhanj Service Regulations. This petition was also rejected. The case for the State is that the Petitioner after having accepted the service conditions of the Government of Orissa and after having submitted to the ruling given in the Finance Department Circular of the 17th August, 1950, has waived his rights arising out of Clause 8 the Merger Agreement, nor can he now, after the lapse of three years, claim to exercise his right for compensation for premature release. The Petitioner kept quiet during an this period, but being encouraged by the decision of the Supreme Court in Bholanath J. Thaker Vs. The State of Saurashtra, has come forward with this application praying for his reinstatement in service till 16th June, 1957 on which date he would complete his 60th year. 4. The Mayurbhanj Service Regulations were passed by the Maharaja guaranteeing security of tenure and laying, down certain conditions of service of the employees of the State. Rule 3 of the Regulations reserves the right of changing the rules and conditions of services of all employees at the option of the Maharaja and there was no machinery to enforce the rules in the municipal courts. Rule 341 further lays down that whenever it was found necessary to determine the services of State servants this could be done by giving three months' notice. This rule has doubtless been observed in this case by the Government of Orissa who gave a warning beforehand that the Petitioner would be required to retire on his attaining his 55th year. Rule 341 further lays down that whenever it was found necessary to determine the services of State servants this could be done by giving three months' notice. This rule has doubtless been observed in this case by the Government of Orissa who gave a warning beforehand that the Petitioner would be required to retire on his attaining his 55th year. The powers exercised by the Maharaja were transferred, after the merger of the State, to the Provincial Government, by the proviso to Clause 5(ii) of the Administration of Mayurbhanj State Order, 1949. The Government of Orissa, who were thus vested with the powers of the Maharaja under the above proviso, could therefore validly terminate the service of an ex-State employees of the State of Mayurbhanj regardless of other conditions of service. Since the rules themselves could be altered at the discretion of the Maharaja, the Provincial Government who were vested with the powers of the Ruler, were equally competent to do so. There is therefore nothing irregular or illegal in the procedure adopted by the opposite party. 5. Nor does the covenant in Article 8 of the Merger Agreement advance the case of the Petitioner. As I apprehend the terms of the Agreement, the conditions of service applicable to the Petitioner after the merger of the State cannot be said to be less advantageous than those which he was enjoying under the Mayurbhanj Durbar. It is said that few months before merger he was drawing only Rs. 355/- per month and it was on the eve of merger that his pay was raised to Rs. 500/- in the scale of Rs. 500-25-800. He had no doubt the benefit of a free residence, but to compensate for this advantage he was given an initial starting salary of Rs. 535. under the Government of Orissa, besides a dearness allowance of Rs. 40/. (which he was not getting while in State service). In any event whether the new conditions of service were more advantageous or less advantageous than the previous ones is a matter to be determined by the employee himself. 535. under the Government of Orissa, besides a dearness allowance of Rs. 40/. (which he was not getting while in State service). In any event whether the new conditions of service were more advantageous or less advantageous than the previous ones is a matter to be determined by the employee himself. The Petitioner was fully conscious of the ruling given in the Finance Department Circular of the 17th August, 1950, which was specially applicable to ex-employees of the State of Mayurbhanj, and if he had any grievance over his premature retirement he should have applied for compensation and release from service, as provided for in that letter itself. After having taken advantage of the new service conditions of the Government of Orissa for three years, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to turn round and ask for compensation on the ground of premature retirement, as an ex-State employee. Even after receiving notice of retirement what he did was to ask for extension of service beyond his 55th year. The question of compensation was raised at a much later stage. 6. The facts in Bholanath Thakur's case are entirely different. There, by Act XXIX of the Wadhwan State which came into force with effect from 1st, January, 1948, the superannuation age of the State Civil Servants was fixed at 60 years. On the 16th March, 1948, the Ruler of Wadhwan made over the administration of the State to the Saurashtra Government, and on that date a proclamation was issued by the Saurashtra Government declaring that whatever rights, jurisdiction and authority were with the Thakur Saheb (Ruler) with respect to the said State were then vested with the Saurashtra Government. It further appears that there Vas an Ordinance promulgated by the Raj Pramukh on the 1st March, 1948, continuing in force all laws, ordinances and acts and regulations having the force of law, in the Covenanting state, until repealed or amended under the provisions of that Ordinance. In these circumstances the Supreme Court held that Act XXIX of Wadhwan State remained in force and the Appellant before Their Lordships was entitled to the benefit of that Act as he could have enforced his rights under that Act in the State's courts against the State itself; and that the only way to defeat his rights was by legislation if that could be done under the Constitution. There was in fact no such legislation and therefore the Appellant's rights remained and the Municipal Courts were entitled to examine the contract and apply the Dhara No. 29 of St. 2004. By Act XXIX of 1948 the Ruler of Wadhwan put a fetter upon his powers to dispense with the services of the Appellants and this obligation had passed to the Saurashtra State, on the making over of the administration of the Wadhwan State to the Raj Pramukh on the 15th March 1948. The case there is clearly distinguishable on facts and lends no assistance to the Petitioner before us, who was given a right to exercise his option before accepting employment under the Provincial Government. The Petitioner can enforce his right, if any, arising out of the Merger Agreement or under the Mayurbhanj Service Regulations, through the ordinary courts, and this Court cannot, in exercise of its powers under Article 226, issue any direction to the opposite party to employ a particular person if his services are not considered necessary. 7. On a consideration of all the circumstances 1 am of opinion that the Petitioner has no grievance so as to entitle him to apply for the issue of a Writ from this Court. The Petitioner may, if so advised, seek his remedy in the ordinary Courts. The application is accordingly dismissed. Rao, J. 8. I agree. 9. Appeal Dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed