ORDER H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - This writ petition is directed against an order of the State Government compulsorily retiring the petitioner on three months notice. 2. In the year 1964, petitioner was employed as Revenue Record Keeper in the Collectorate at Shahjahanpur. On 10th February, 1964, the Collector issued the following notice to the petitioner :- "Please take notice that you will be retired from Government service after three months from the date of receipt of this notice " 3. It is alleged in the petition that as the petitioner had attained the age of fifty-five (58) years on 1st March, 1964, in case the opposite parties wanted to retire, there should have been a notice on 1st December, 1963, within the meaning of amended Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, but since they failed to do so, the notice is illegal The second ground urged in the petition for the alleged invalidity of the notice is that no grounds have been given in the order as to why the appointing authority acts in the favour of one against the other" 4. In the counter-affidavit, it has been asserted that the only requirement laid down in the Rule is that the appointing authority has to give three months notice to the Government servant after he attains the age of 55 years and it nowhere lays down that the notice has to be given at least three months in advance before he attains that age. The petitioner as served with the requisite notice on the 10th February, 1964, and he retired in the after-noon of 9th May, 1964. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner retired from service in May, 1964. The relevant part of the Rule provides that :- "the appointing authority may require the Government servant to retire after he attains the age of 55 years on 3 months' notice without assigning any reason " 6. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the only condition precedent for exercising the power of retirement is to give three months' notice to the Government servant. There is nothing to show that this notice must be given to the Government servant before he attains the age of 55 years. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the only condition precedent for exercising the power of retirement is to give three months' notice to the Government servant. There is nothing to show that this notice must be given to the Government servant before he attains the age of 55 years. If the notice in this case was given to the petitioner after he had attained the age of 55 years and he was retired after the expiry of the period of the notice, he cannot raise any complaint on that account because he was allowed to continue in service even beyond 55 years. 7. As regards the question of discrimination, it has been asserted in the counter-affidavit that before issuing the notice to the petitioner, his suitability for continuance was considered in accordance with the rules and, therefore, there is no reason to hold that he had been discriminated against for no rhyme or reason. 8. In the result, I find no force in this petition and it is dismissed with costs.