JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - The Petitioner joined as a lower division clerk under the District Board of Cuttack on 24-10-1934 and continued to serve under the said Board till 25-1-1961, when the District Board went out of existence. His services were taken over by the Collector of Cuttack for a short period between 25-1-1961 and 31-8-1961, and thereafter he served under the Zilla Parishad of Cuttack, established under the Orissa Panchayat Samiti and Zilla Parishad Act, 1959 from 1-9-1961 till 1-8-1968 when he retired from service. 2. On 5-6-1968, the Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack, acting as Executive Officer of Zilla Parish ad of Cuttack called upon the Petitioner to retire from service with effect from 1-8-1968. The said order reads as follows: On verification from the service book it is seen that your date of birth is 20-7-1913 and as such you will complete 55 by 20-7-1968. According to the Government in C.D. & P.R. (C.D.) Department letter No. 2232-CD dated 23-5-1968 you are required to retire on 1-8-1968 F.N. which please take note. The Petitioner challenges this order superannuating him with effect from 1-8-1968. 3. The challenge is mainly on two grounds-(1) The Petitioner being in service on 31-3-1936, was ordinarily entitled to continue till the age of 60 if he continued to be efficient. This is on the basis of the provision contained in Rule 71(b) of the Orissa Service Code, and (2) The Petitioner is entitled to have the benefit of his original service conditions under the District Board, in terms whereof he is entitled to continue in service as long as he continued to be efficient and no particular age of superannuation Bad been fixed. Section 51 of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti and Zilla Parishad Act would be applicable to the case and as such the original conditions of service would ensure to the Petitioner. Section 51 of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti and Zilla Parishad Act would be applicable to the case and as such the original conditions of service would ensure to the Petitioner. The provisions of Section 51 may, therefore, be extracted: 51(1)-Not with standing anything contained in any law, rule, order or contract in force on the date of constitution of a Parishad or Samiti the Government may direct that the employees of any District Board, shall be appointed under the Parishad or Samiti or the Government according to their qualification and nature of duties assigned to them in the said board and thereupon such employees shall case to be employees of the said District Board and they shall become employees of the Parishad or Samiti or the Government, as the case may be. Such employees shall as far as practicable, be appointed to posts of a grade or class similar to the one they were holding previously. (2) The appointment under Sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be a continuation of service of the employee and he shall be entitled to the benefits of his previous service as regards leave or provident fund, which accrued to him before such appointment. Mr. Mohanty's contention is on the basis of Sub-section (2) of the aforesaid section. Admittedly, the Petitioner was not in Government service until 26-1-1961. Rule 71(b) of the Orissa Service Code provides: A ministerial servant who was in permanent Government service on the 31st March 1936, may be required to retire at the age of 55 years but should ordinarily be retained in service, if he continues efficient, upto the age of 60 years. He must not be retained after that age, except in very special circumstances which must be recorded in writing and with the sanction of the State Government. On the admitted position that the Petitioner was not a permanent Government servant (and not a Government servant at all) on 31-3-1936, the said sub-rule has no application to him. The first contention raised by Mr. Mohanty, therefore, must fail. 4. Coming to the second contention, on 26-1-1961 the Petitioner became a Government servant and subsequently he served under the Zilla Parishad of Cuttack. The first contention raised by Mr. Mohanty, therefore, must fail. 4. Coming to the second contention, on 26-1-1961 the Petitioner became a Government servant and subsequently he served under the Zilla Parishad of Cuttack. Sub-section (2) of Section 51 of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti and Zilla Parish ad Act cannot bring back the service conditions under the District Board in view of the fact that there was no continuity until the Petitioner came to serve under the Zilla Parishad on 1-9-1961, and what preceded the Petitioner's joining service under the Zilla. Parish ad is the intervening period during which he served under the Collector as a Government employee. Therefore, Sub-section (2) of Section 51 cannot restore the conditions of service available under the District Board to the Petitioner. 5. We would also make a reference to the order of appointment dated 4-9-1961 which was issued by the Collector of Cuttack. It has considerable bearing on the merits of the case and therefore we extract it below: Order Cuttack District Office. The following employees of the Cuttack defunct District Board appointed temporarily in District Office Memo 385(15) dated 25-1-1961 under the Collector, Cuttack are appointed to work temporarily with effect from 1-9-1961 in the office of Zilla Parishad, Cuttack against the posts created in Planning & Co-ordination (G. P.) Department Memo No. 3357/Z.P. dated 24-8-1961 and letter No. 3494(6) G.P. dated 1-9-1961. The staff so appointed are likely to be ultimately absorbed in the Zilla Parish ad service, when constituted, on terms and conditions that would be decided in due course. They will continue at present as temporary Government servants on their existing pay and usual Dearness Allowance. Collector, Cuttack. It is patent from the said appointment order that the Petitioner was to continue as a temporary Government servant. No other order of appointment is placed before us, and, therefore, we must hold that the Petitioner continued as a Government servant until the date of retirement. The Petitioner did not challenge the order of superannuation on any other ground in this case. On the aforesaid analysis we held that the order of superannuation is not vitiated and the Petitioner has been rightly directed to retire with effect from 1-8-1968. 6. This writ application, therefore, fails and is dismissed, but we make no order as to costs. G.K. Misra, C.J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed