JUDGMENT V.G. Oak, C. J. - The question for consideration in this Special Appeal is whether the order passed by the State Government compulsorily retiring respondent No. I is valid or not. H.C. Kaushal Joined service as an Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department in the year 1910. In November, 1969 he was promoted as Additional Chief Engineer. On 1-6-1970 the State Government passed an order retiring him compulsorily. This order dated 1-6-1970 was challenged by H. C. Kaushal by filing a writ petition. The writ petition has been allowed by a Single judge of this Court. He has quashed the order, dated, 1-6-1970. The State of Uttar Pradesh has filed this Special Appeal against the decision of the learned Single Judge. 2. Annexure B to the writ petition is a copy of the impugned order dated 1-6-1970. The order was passed under paragraph 465 of the Civil Service Regulations. It was urged for the petitioner that no such action under paragraph 465, Civil Service Regulations was permissible in view of a similar provision under the U.P. Fundamental Rule 56 (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1970. 3. It was stated in Annexure B that the petitioner had completed 25 years of service. Paragraph 465 of Civil Service Regulations provides for compulsory retirement of a Government servant, who has completed 25 years' service. A somewhat similar provision is to be round in the Amendment and Validation Act, 1970. The provision in the Act provides for compulsory retirement of a Government servant upon his completing 55 years. It was urged that, in view of this provision in the Act, the corresponding provision in paragraph 465 of Civil Service Regulations is inoperative. 4. It is true that both the provisions relate to compulsory retirement of Government servant. It is also true that both the provisions contemplate action in the public interest. But the circumstances contemplated by the two provisions are slightly different. Action under paragraph 465 of Civil Service Regulations can be taken when an officer has completed 25 years of qualifying service. Action under the Act of 1970 can be taken when an officer has completed 55 years (in age) . Since the two provisions act in slightly different fields, it cannot be said that the later provision supersedes the earlier provision. Action under the Act of 1970 can be taken when an officer has completed 55 years (in age) . Since the two provisions act in slightly different fields, it cannot be said that the later provision supersedes the earlier provision. According to Article 309 of the Constitution, a rule framed by the Government is to remain in force so long as a provision in that behalf is not made by an act of the appropriate Legislature. Article 309 contemplates a provision in a statute on the same subject which is covered by the earlier rule framed by the Governor. Since the fields of the two provisions are slightly different, it is possible for both the provisions to exist side by side. 5. It was next contended for the petitioner that action against him was arbitrary. It is pointed out that he was promoted from the post of Superintending Engineer to the post of Additional Chief Engineer. The counter-affidavit indicates the reasons, which induced the State Government to retire the petitioner compulsorily. Firstly, there are some adverse entries in the petitioner's character-roll. Secondly, he remained on medical leave for 16 months. Thirdly, his integrity certificate was withheld in April, 1970. In view of these circumstances, it cannot be said that action against the petitioner was arbitrary. 6. The main contention of Mr. S.N. Kakkar, appearing for the petitioner, is that the order dated 1-6-1970 amounts to punishment, and violates Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. In Annexure B dated 1-6-1970, it was stated that the Governor was passing the order in public interest. Mr. Kakkar contended that the recital in the order that it was being passed in public interest casts a stigma on the petitioner. This view has been challenged by the appellant. 7. In "J.N. Sinha v. Union of India", 1970 Service Law Reporter 213, the petitioner was retired compulsorily. It was stated in the order that the President of India was retiring the petitioner in public interest. It was urged for the petitioner that the order casts a stigma on him. It was held by Delhi High Court that there was substance in the contention advanced by the petitioner's counsel. The High Court, however, did not record a definite finding on the question. We understand that when the matter went before the Supreme Court, the case was remanded to Delhi High Court for further consideration of the matter. It was held by Delhi High Court that there was substance in the contention advanced by the petitioner's counsel. The High Court, however, did not record a definite finding on the question. We understand that when the matter went before the Supreme Court, the case was remanded to Delhi High Court for further consideration of the matter. 8. In "Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India", A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 449, it was stated in the order of discharge that the petitioner was found undesirable to be retained in Government service. It was held that the order amounted to an order of dismissal. Consequently Article 311 (2) was attracted. 9. In "State of U.P. v. Madan Mohan", A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1260 it was stated in the order of discharge that the petitioner had outlived his utility. It was held by the Supreme Court that that recital in the order casts a stigma on the petitioner. 10. In "Shyam Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh", A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 369, it was held that compulsory retirement under Service Rules does not amount to punishment. 11. Paragraph 465 of Civil Service Regulations provides for compulsory retirement from service. Mr. S.N. Kakkar did not challenge the validity of paragraph 465. He merely urged that the recital in the order dated 1-6-1970 casts a stigma on the petitioner. 12. In "J.N. Wanchoo v. Union of India, Special Appeal No. 444 of 1970 decided on 12.2.1971" the appellant was made to retire from service. It was stated in the order that the President was passing the order in the public interest. It has held that the order did not cast a stigma on the appellant. One of us was a member of the Division Bench, which decided the special Appeal. 13. A similar case came before another Division Bench in "Baba Ram Verma v. State of U.P. and others", decided on 12-2-1971. It was held by the Division Bench that the order of discharge did not cast a stigma on Babu Ram Verma. We respectfully agree. 14. In "Shiva Charana v. State of Mysore, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 280", the petitioner was a police officer. He was served with a notice issued by the Government of Mysore informing him that the Government considered that it was necessary in the public interest to retire him from service under Note 1 to Rule 285 of Mysore Civil Services Rules. 14. In "Shiva Charana v. State of Mysore, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 280", the petitioner was a police officer. He was served with a notice issued by the Government of Mysore informing him that the Government considered that it was necessary in the public interest to retire him from service under Note 1 to Rule 285 of Mysore Civil Services Rules. The order of discharge was upheld by the Supreme Court. 15. Shiva Charana's case, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 280 came up for consideration in "State of U.P. v. Madan Mohan, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1260". In paragraph 9 of the judgment in Madan Mohan's case, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1260the Supreme Court observed :- "Mr. Gupta, relies on T.G. Shiva Charana Singh v. State of Mysore, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 280, But this case does not assist him because it does not appear that the order in that case contained any stigma ................" It is to be noted that the order passed against Shiva Charana Singh expressly, mentioned that the order was being passed in Public interest. It was held by the Supreme Court that the order did not cast any stigma on Shiva Charana Singh. 16. In "Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 1305", the following order was passed by the Raj Pramukh : "His Highness the Rajpramukh is pleased to retire from service Sardar Dalip Singh, Inspector General of Police, Papsu (on leave) for administrative reasons with effect from the 18th August, 1960." It was held by the Supreme Court that the order did not attract Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. 17. The decision of the Supreme Court in Shiva Charana's case, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 280 and Dalip Singh's case, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 1305 lend support to the appellant-s contention that a mere recital in an order of discharge that the order is being passed in public interest does not cast a stigma on the Government servant. It is true that in most cases such orders are passed on account of some complaint against the Government servant as regards his efficiency or integrity. But one can easily conceive of cases where an order is passed without any complaint against the Government servant. Some officer may be made to retire in the interest of economy. It is possible to terminate the services of elderly Government servants in order to relieve unemployment. But one can easily conceive of cases where an order is passed without any complaint against the Government servant. Some officer may be made to retire in the interest of economy. It is possible to terminate the services of elderly Government servants in order to relieve unemployment. It is not, therefore, correct to say that an order passed in public interest necessarily involves reflection on the Government servant's efficiency or integrity. We accept the appellant's contention that Annexure B does not cast any stigma on respondent No. 1. The order was passed under a Service Regulation which provides for compulsory retirement. That order has to stand. 18. The Special Appeal is allowed; and the writ petition is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs before the learned Single Judge and in Special Appeal.