ORDER Dixit, C.J. 1. By this application under articles 226 and 277 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing an order passed by the State Government on 3rd January 1963 in the exercise of its powers under rule 2 (3), clause (ii) of the Madhya Pradesh New Pension Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the New Pension Rules). retiring him from service with effect from the forenoon of 10th February 1963. The petitioner presented a representation to the Governor against the order of the State Government which was rejected. A writ of certiorari is also sought for quashing the order rejecting the representation. 2. At the time of retirement the petitioner was officiating as District Excise Officer, Shivpuri, and had completed more then 30 years' qualifying superior service. These facts are not disputed in the return filed on behalf of the opponent-State. The in punned order of retirement made under rule 2 (3) (ii) of the New Pension Rules stated that the petitioner had completed a qualifying superior service of 25 years under the State Government and that the Government was satisfied that the applicant was inefficient and it would be in the public interest to required him to retire compulsorily. At the material time the age of superannuation fixed by Fundamental Rule 56 applicable to the petitioner was 55 years. Rule 2 of the New Pension Rules framed by the State Government in the exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution of of India, so far as it is material here, runs as follows: "2 (1) * * * 2 (2) A Government servant may retire from service at any time after completing 30 years' qualifying superior service provided that he shall give in this behalf, a notice in writing to the appropriate authority, at least three months before the date on which be wished to retire. Government may also require a Government servant to retire at any time after he has completed 30 years qualifying superior service provided that the appropriate authority shall give in this behalf a notice in writing to the Government servant at least three months before the date on which he is required to retire. Government may also require a Government servant to retire at any time after he has completed 30 years qualifying superior service provided that the appropriate authority shall give in this behalf a notice in writing to the Government servant at least three months before the date on which he is required to retire. (3) (i) after completion of a qualifying superior service of 25 years, a Government servant may be permitted, by the appropriate authority, to retire- (a) in the interests of Government i.e., where administrative convenience is served or economy is effected by his retirement, or (b) otherwise than in the interests of Government. (ii) A Government servant may also be required to retire, by the appropriate authority, on the ground of inefficiency after completing a qualifying superior service of 25 years. * * *" The petitioner's contentions are that the order of retirement was one imposing on him the punishment of removing him from service and was illegal as it was passed without complying with article 311 of the constitution; and that, further, having completed mere than 30 years qualifying superior service, he could be retired only under rule 2 (3) and not under rule 2 (3) (ii) on the ground of inefficiency. 3. So far as the first contention of the applicant is concerned, namely, that his retirement amounted to removal from service so as to attract the provisions of article 311 of the Constitution is concerned, it must be rejected in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Dalip Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 1305 ; State of Bombay Vs. Saubhagchand M. Doshi. AIR 1957 SC 892 and Shyamlal Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1954 SC 369 . No charge-sheet was ever framed against the applicant and no enquiry was held against him. By the order of retirement the petitioner has not lost any benefit which he had already earned till that date. It cannot, therefore, be held that the retirement of the applicant was by way of punishment of removal from service. True, the Government retired him on the ground of inefficiency. But that only furnished the background for his retirement. There is, therefore no substance in the contention that the order passed by the Government compulsorily retiring the applicant amounted to his removal from service in contravention of the provisions of article 311 of the Constitution. 4. True, the Government retired him on the ground of inefficiency. But that only furnished the background for his retirement. There is, therefore no substance in the contention that the order passed by the Government compulsorily retiring the applicant amounted to his removal from service in contravention of the provisions of article 311 of the Constitution. 4. The argument that was strenuously pressed before us by Shri Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was that sub-rules (2) and (3) (ii) of the New Pension Rules were mutually exclusive; and that, therefore, the Government could not exercise its powers under sub-rules (2) and (3) (ii) of requiring a Government servant to retire on the ground of inefficiency in the case of a Government servant who had completed 30 years' qualifying superior service. In our judgment, this contention must be given effect to. It is plain from the language of sub-rules (2) and (3) that they deal with the question of retirement of Government servants falling in two different categories. Sub-rule (2) first gives to a Government servant an absolute option to retire from service at any time after completing 30 years' qualifying superior service. Such a person can claim retirement after giving to that effect a notice in writing to the appropriate authority at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire. The rule then proceeds to the Government also the power to require a Government servant to retire at any time after he has completed 30 years' qualifying superior service provided the appropriate authority gives a notice in writing to the Government servant at least three months before the date on which he is required to retire. It must be noted that the power of the Government to require a Government servant to retire under sub-rule (2) is not conditioned by such circumstances as inefficiency of the Government servant, or interest of Government, or administrative convenience. If a Government servant has completed 30 years' qualifying superior service, then the Government can retire him for any reason after giving the prescribed notice. 5. Now, coming to sub-rule (3), its first clause gives to a Government servant, who has completed qualifying superior service of 25 years, an option to retire. But he has no absolute right to opt for retirement. 5. Now, coming to sub-rule (3), its first clause gives to a Government servant, who has completed qualifying superior service of 25 years, an option to retire. But he has no absolute right to opt for retirement. It is only if the Government permits him to retire on considerations mentioned in clause (i) that the Government servant asking for retirement can retire. Under the second clause a Government servant may be required to retire by the appropriate authority on the ground of inefficiency after completing a qualifying superior service of 25 years. The distinction between the two rules is plain enough. Whereas sub rule (3) deals with the retirement of Government servants completing 25 years qualifying superior service sub-rule (2) is concerned with the retirement of those Government servants who have completed 30 years qualifying superior service. Thus, sub-rule (2) is a special rule dealing with the retirement of Government servant is who have completed 30 years qualifying superior service. In the presence of a special provision embodied in sub-rule (2) dealing with the retirement of Government servants who have completed 30 years qualifying superior service, sub-rule (3) can apply only to those Government servants who have completed a qualifying superior service of 25 years and not completed 30 years' qualifying superior service. After a Government servant has completed 30 years qualifying superior of service, the only provision undo which he can be required to retire before the age of superannuation, namely 55 years, is rule 2 (2). When a Government Servant has completed 30 years" qualifying superior service, the appropriate authority cannot resort to rule 2 (3) (ii) and require him to retire on the ground of inefficiency. That sub-rule (3) (ii) cannot be applied to a Government servant who has completed 30 years' qualifying superior service becomes further clear from the fact that the applicability of sub rule (3) (ii) to a Government servant, who has completed 30 years" qualifying superior service, would result in defeating the absolute option which such a Government servant has of opting for retirement. It would also deprive such a Government servant of the right of "three months notice by the appropriate authority" before he is retired under sub-rule (2). As already pointed out earlier, under sub-rule (3) a Government servant cannot claim retirement as of right. It would also deprive such a Government servant of the right of "three months notice by the appropriate authority" before he is retired under sub-rule (2). As already pointed out earlier, under sub-rule (3) a Government servant cannot claim retirement as of right. He can retire only if he is permitted by the appropriate authority and clause (ii) which gives to the Government the power to retire a Government servant who has completed 25 years' qualifying superior service is only a part of sub-rule (3). The provision in sub-rule (3) of a Government servant being permitted to retire and the appropriate authority requiring him to retire on the ground of inefficiency go together. The requirement of retirement on the ground of inefficiency spoken of in clause (ii) of sub-rule (3) cannot be interpolated in sub-rule (2) so as to destroy the right conferred by that rule on a Government servant in the matter of retirement. The absence of any grounds or considerations for retirement in sub-rule (2) is for a good reason and not without significance. After a person has put in 30 years' service, it is unreasonable to expect him to be at the same standard of efficiency at which he was after completing 25 years' service, or to compel him to continue in service on the ground of interest of Government or administrative convenience. A Government servant, who has put in 30 years' qualifying superior service, deserves retirement when he ask, for it and without any blemish of inefficiency, provided, of course, if on account of any charge of misconduct against him he cannot be permitted or required to retire under any other rule relating to disciplinary action. 6. In the present case, the impugned order was passed under sub-rule (3) (ii) which did not at all apply 10 the petitioner. That order cannot be treated as one made under sub-rule (2) as the Government did not give to the petitioner notice in writing at least three month, before the date on which he was retired. The order of the petitioner's retirement was thus not in accordance with rule 2 (2). It was in contravention of that rule; and that being so, it must be held to be illegal. 7. Shri Bhave, learned Government Advocate relied on Narasimhachar Vs. The order of the petitioner's retirement was thus not in accordance with rule 2 (2). It was in contravention of that rule; and that being so, it must be held to be illegal. 7. Shri Bhave, learned Government Advocate relied on Narasimhachar Vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1960 SC 247 to support his contention that the giving, of three months' notice to the petitioner under rule 2 (2) was not necessary in our opinion, the Supreme Court decision is not in point here. That was a case where a civil servant of the Mysore State was retired by the Mysore Government on his attaining the age of superannuation, namely, 55 years, fixed by article 294 of the Mysore Services Regulations, Relying on rule 2 (ii) of the Revised Pension Rule, framed under article 215 of the Mysore Services Regulations, the civil servant contended that the Order of the Government retiring him was illegal inasmuch as that rule required three months' notice to be given to him before he was retired at the age of 55 years and that no such notice had been given to him. Rule 2 (ii) of the Mysore Revised Pension Rules provided that a Government servant may retire from service any time after completing 30 years qualifying service; Provided that he shall give in this behalf a notice in writing to the appropriate authority, at least three months before the date on which he wished to retire. It further provides that the Government may in special cases require any Government servant to retire any time after he bas completed 25 years qualifying service or on attaining 50 years' age if such retirement is considered necessary in the public interest: Provided that the appropriate authority shall give in this behalf a notice in writing to the Government servant at least three months before the date on which he is required to retire. While repelling the contention advanced on behalf of the civil servant, the Supreme Court said that rule 2 (ii) was supplementary to articles 294 and 297 of the Mysore Services Regulations and that what that rule contemplated was that if a public servant had completed 30 years' service, though he had not attained the age of 55 years, he could ask the Government to retire him after giving three months' notice, and further that the Government could also require an officer after he had completed 25 years of service or attained 50 years of age, that is, before he was normally due for retirement at the age of 55 years and that the rule did not mean that when once the officer is past the age of 50 years or had completed 25 years of service, he must always be given a notice of three months before be could be retired at 55 years afterwards. The Supreme Court further said that rule 2 (ii) embodied a special provision relating to those cases where the Government wished to retire an officer before the ordinary age of retirement, namely, 55 years. It will be seen that in Narsimhachars' case (supra) what the Supreme Court decided was that when the age of superannuation had been fixed by article 294 of the Mysore Services Regulations, then a notice to a civil servant for retiring him at that age was not necessary. The Supreme Court has nowhere observed that the provisions contained in rule 2 (ii) relating to three months' notice can be dispensed with by the Government when it wished to retire a person after he has completed 25 years' qualifying services or un attaining 50 years of age but who has not attained tile age of 55 years when he can be retired under article 294. The observations of the Supreme Court contained in paragraph (4 a) of the judgment in Narsimhachar’s. State of Mysore (supra). On the other hand, if applied to the present case, would only go to show that a notice for retiring the petitioner under rule 2 (2) was necessary before retiring him under that rule as he had not attained the age of superannuation. 8. For these reasons, this petition is allowed. The order, dated 3rd January 1963 of the State Government retiring the petitioner is quashed. The applicant shall have casts of this petition. 8. For these reasons, this petition is allowed. The order, dated 3rd January 1963 of the State Government retiring the petitioner is quashed. The applicant shall have casts of this petition. Counsel's fee is fixed at Rs.100/-. The outstanding amount of the security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner.