JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - The Petitioner was a Civil Surgeon. He was promoted as Joint Director of Health on 21-6-1962. His date of birth being 1-7-1908 he completed his 55th year on 30-6-1963. On 21-5-1963 under a certain Government Resolution the age of superannuation of all State Government servants was raised from 55 to 58 years, subject to the condition that after the 55th year the services of an officer could be terminated on three months notice. On 4-7-1963 the under Secretary to the Government of Orissa in the Health Department addressed the following letter to the Petitioner: I am directed to Bay that Government have been pleased to order that Dr. B.C. Biswal, Joint Director of Health Services (Medical) who has reached the age of superannuation on 30-6-1963 A.N. should continue in service till he attains the age of 58 years or until further orders issued to the contrary, whichever, is earlier, in accordance with paragraph 3 of the P and Section Department Resolution No. 7406/Gen. dated 21-5-1963. Government asked the Petitioner to retire on 29-8-1965 forenoon, on service of three months notice. As the Petitioner was to complete his 58th year on 30-6-1966 his grievance is that the termination of his services amounted to punishment and, as such, he was entitled to an enquiry under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. To get the aforesaid relief this writ application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The petition is wholly without substance. It has been concluded by two decisions of this Court reported in Batahari Jena and Another Vs. State of Orissa and Another, and Somanath Misra v. Union of India 1968 C.L.T. 1026 that even during the currency of the tenure of a Government servant after the expiry of 55 years and before the attainment of the 58th year, Government can terminate his service by giving him notice of three months. Such termination of service has been held as not amounting to removal or dismissal from service and consequently Article 311(2) has no application. 3. Mr. Ray, however, very strongly contended, on the basis of the aforesaid letter of Government dated 4-7-1963 that Petitioner could not be retired before the expiry of the 58th year. The letter, already quoted, runs counter to such contention. 3. Mr. Ray, however, very strongly contended, on the basis of the aforesaid letter of Government dated 4-7-1963 that Petitioner could not be retired before the expiry of the 58th year. The letter, already quoted, runs counter to such contention. It has been clearly stated therein that the Petitioner could be retired before the expiry of the 58th year if Government so choose. In support of his contention Mr. Ray relied on Dr. S.N. Ghosal v. State of Orissa 1968 C.L.T. 1392. That case was decided on its own facts. A Bench of this Court held therein that under the special terms of the contract entered into by the Government servant in that case, his services were extended upto the 58th year and not on the basis of the Government Resolution passed on 21-5-1963. That case having been decided on its own peculiar facts, lays down no general principle. The correctness of that decision is open to doubt as being apparently in conflict with the two earlier decisions. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, however, it is not necessary to express any final opinion, as on the aforesaid analysis there is no substance in the Petitioner's case. 4. In the result, the application fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. R.N. Misra, J. 5. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed