Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal by the petitioner in O.P. No. 872 of 1959. The petition was dismissed on 8.8.1960. 2. The petitioner was a Winch Driver in the Public Works Department of the State. By Ext. P4 dated 20.5.1954 he obtained the privilege of continuing in service until he attained the age of 60. 3. On the formation of the Electricity Board his services were transferred to that Board. It was specifically provided in Ext. P-5 dated 3-4-1957 that "the Board should extend to the personnel transferred and lent, all the benefits such as payment and allowances and other conditions of service as enjoyed by them in Government Service.". 4. The petitioner's post both under the Government and the Board was a temporary post. If that post was abolished, the petitioner's service would naturally terminate on the date of abolition even though he had not attained the age of 60 on that date. 5. What has happened in this case appears to have been not the abolition of the post; but its conversion from a temporary post to a permanent one. This is clear from the affidavit filed on behalf of the Board which says: "The Work Establishment posts in the Pipe Line Section including that of the Winch Driver were made permanent posts from 1-4-1957. The post of Winch Driver consequently became one on the superior cadre in regular service". The affidavit goes on to say that the petitioner attained the age of 55 on 6-4-1957, that in view of the conversion of his post from a temporary one to a permanent one he could not be retained in service after he attained that age, and that he was actually relieved from his duties on 13-4-1957. 6. It looks curious indeed that an employee should lose five years of service simply because the temporary post that he was occupying was converted into a permanent post. We find, however, that the petitioner is now past the age of 60 and his reinstatement is impossible even if we came to the conclusion that the termination of his services was improper. 7. All that we need do in these circumstances is to reverse the judgment in O.P. No. 872 of 1959 and leave the petitioner free to pursue such remedies as he deems fit against the Board for his being compelled to retire at 55 instead of at 60. 7. All that we need do in these circumstances is to reverse the judgment in O.P. No. 872 of 1959 and leave the petitioner free to pursue such remedies as he deems fit against the Board for his being compelled to retire at 55 instead of at 60. We express no opinion on the merits of the case; but would like to add that the Board should look into the matter, and if any injustice has been done, rectify the same by an adequate monetary compensation. 8. The appeal is disposed of as above. No costs.