JUDGMENT R.S. Pathak, J. - I have carefully read the judgment of my learned brother Gulati and I agree with him that the appeal should be allowed. But I may shortly set out the reasons which persuade me to that opinion. 2. The respondent is aggrieved by the order terminating his services. It is urged that by the impugned order he has lost a valuable right and, therefore must be taken to have been punished and that consequently he is entitled to the protection of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. The valuable right, it is said, is the right to Retiring pension. I regret that upon the facts of the present case I do not see how he can ever be said to have earned that right. 3. Of the four different kinds of pensions to which our attention has been invited, it is clear that neither compensation pension, nor invalid pension is in question here. Nor can he lay claim to superannuation pension, because admittedly his services have been terminated before he could reach the age of superannuation, that is to say, 58 years. What remains in the Retiring pension. Could he have been entitled to that? According to Article 465 (2), Civil Service Regulations (U.P. ), a Retiring pension is granted to a Government servant who is required by the Government to retire after completing 25 years or more qualifying service. Upon the facts peculiar to this case, there could never be any question of the respondent completing 25 years of qualifying service. If his services had not been terminated, he would have been entitled to continue in service until January 28, 1971, when he would have reached the age of superannuation. On that date, he could still not have completed 25 years of qualifying service. He entered service on April 12, 1948 and, therefore, that could have been only on April 12, 1973. In other words, whether or not the impugned order terminating his services was passed, the respondent could never have qualified for Retiring pension in terms of Article 465 (2). That is not a benefit which could even possibly have belonged to him even if he had continued in service up to the age of superannuation. 4. Shri S.N. Upadhya, appearing on behalf of the appellant, admits that the respondent is entitled to some pension. That is not a benefit which could even possibly have belonged to him even if he had continued in service up to the age of superannuation. 4. Shri S.N. Upadhya, appearing on behalf of the appellant, admits that the respondent is entitled to some pension. Whatever pension that may be, it is not the Retiring pension upon which learned counsel for the respondent relies. If the claim of the respondent is that the impugned order has destroyed the right to the Retiring pension specified by Article 465 (2) , the claim is not well founded. If the claim is in respect of the pension to which, upon the admission of Shri S.N. Upadhya, the respondent is still entitled, I am unable to see how the impugned order can be impeached on the ground on which it is assailed. 5. I allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and dismiss the writ petition. But in the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs. 6. Gulati, J.- This Special Appeal has been filed by the State of U.P. against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated March 17, 1970 allowing the writ petition of the respondent. 7. The respondent, Sri P.D. Joshi, joined service on April 12, 1948, as an Assistant Teacher in English and was ultimately selected in the Subordinate Educational Service (Gazetted) Class III. In May, 1966 he was selected for officiating appointment as Head Master in the Subordinate Educational Service. On August 5, 1968, he received a notice dated July 6, 1968 purporting to be under Paragraph (1) of the first proviso to clause (a) of Fundamental Rule 56, by which he was required to retire on the expiry of three months. The respondent made a representation to the U.P. Government, but the same was turned down by an order dated August 26, 1968. Then he filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. That petition has been allowed by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tripathi. The learned Judge has held that the impugned order of compulsory retirement has seriously prejudiced the respondent's right to pension and as such the order comes within the mischief of clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution and since the procedure contemplated by that provision of the Constitution has not been followed, the impugned order is void. 8. The learned Judge has held that the impugned order of compulsory retirement has seriously prejudiced the respondent's right to pension and as such the order comes within the mischief of clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution and since the procedure contemplated by that provision of the Constitution has not been followed, the impugned order is void. 8. Under Fundamental Rule 56 the age of superannuation of a Government servant is 58 years but power has been reserved by the Government to retire a Government servant after he attains the age of 55 years by giving him three months notice. 9. The respondent's date of birth is January 28, 1913 and thus he attained the age of 55 years on January 28, 1968. He, however, would attain the age of superannuation on January 28, 1971. The impugned notice of July 6, 1968 was thus a valid notice because the respondent had already crossed the age of 55 years. The short question, however, is as to whether as a result of the compulsory retirement, the respondent has been visited with any evil consequences as would attract clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution. The evil consequences contemplated by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution must be such as cast a stigma on the character of the Government servant concerned or deprive him of any benefit already accrued to him. The submission made on behalf of the respondent is that as a result of the impugned order, he has lost the right to receive pension which he had already earned. 10. Article 424 of the Civil Service Regulations (U.P.) enumerates the following four classes of pensions. (i) Compensation Pensions; (ii) Invalid Pensions; (iii) Superannuation Pensions; and (iv) Retiring Pensions; This classification is applicable to all the employees belonging to superior or inferior services. Out of the four types of pensions, the respondent is admittedly not entitled to the compensation or invalid pensions. He is not entitled to superannuation pension also, because he has retired before he could attain the age of superannuation. The retiring pension is the only pension to which he may be entitled. Article 465 of the Civil Service Regulations (U.P.) deals with the retiring pension and runs as follows :- "466 1. He is not entitled to superannuation pension also, because he has retired before he could attain the age of superannuation. The retiring pension is the only pension to which he may be entitled. Article 465 of the Civil Service Regulations (U.P.) deals with the retiring pension and runs as follows :- "466 1. A retiring pension is granted to a Government servant who is permitted to retire after completing qualifying service for twenty five years or on attaining the age of 50 years. 2. A retiring pension is also granted to a Government servant who is required by Government to retire after completing 25 years or more of qualifying service. Note : (1) Government retains the right to retire any Government servant after he has completed 25 years qualifying service without giving any reason, and no claim to special compensation on this account shall be entertained. This right shall only be exercised by Government in the Administrative Department where it is in the public interest to dispense with the services of a Government servant who has outlived his usefulness. Note : (1) The power of retirement under the above mentioned Article is exercisable by Government where they consider that it is in the public interest to dispense with the services of a Government servant who has outlived his usefulness. Such retirement does not amount to `dismissal' or `removal' within the meaning of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and it is not necessary, therefore, to give an opportunity to the Government servant concerned to show cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him." 11. Now, an analysis of this Article shows that its clause (1) applies in the case of a Government servant who retires voluntarily. This clause would not be applicable to the respondent, because he has not retired voluntarily. Clause (2) deals with the compulsory retirement of a Government servant at the instance of the Government. In such a case the Government servant is entitled to pension only if his retirement takes places after completing twenty five years or more of the qualifying service. This clause would be applicable in the case of the respondent. But since he has not put in 25 years of qualifying service, no pension would be admissible in his case. It would thus appear that the respondent would probably get no pension. 12. This clause would be applicable in the case of the respondent. But since he has not put in 25 years of qualifying service, no pension would be admissible in his case. It would thus appear that the respondent would probably get no pension. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, invited our attention to paragraph 14 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State, which reads :- "14. That with regard to paragraph 12 on the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner will get such pension as would be admissible to him under the rules." He stated that the respondent would receive pension and the matter was under the consideration of the Government. We found that those assertions in the counter-affidavit were vague. We allowed time to Sri Upadhya to ascertain as to under what rule the respondent would be allowed pension. He has now produced before us a booklet called the "New Pension Procedure", published by the Pension Cell, Vitta Vibhag, Uttar Pradesh Shasan. Paragraph 23 of this Booklet provides :- "23. Government servants retired on attaining the age of 55 years in accordance with the procedure laid down in F. R. 56 are entitled to retiring pension." We have already notice that under Article 465, which deals with Retiring Pension, the respondent does not appear to be qualified to receive any pension. However, I would not like to express any final opinion on this point, because, according to the stand taken by the State, the respondent is entitled to the Retiring Pension. In these circumstances when the Government is willing to grant the respondent Retiring Pension, the writ petition filed by the respondent, in my opinion, was premature. He ought to have waited for the decision of the Government and if he was not satisfied with the amount or the class of pension, he could have then raised the dispute. But as the things stand at present, I do not think that the respondent has any just cause of grievance. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent then submitted that Fundamental Rule 56 under which the respondent has been compulsorily retired is invalid. He relied upon the case of Gurdev Singh Sidhu v. The State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1585. But as the things stand at present, I do not think that the respondent has any just cause of grievance. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent then submitted that Fundamental Rule 56 under which the respondent has been compulsorily retired is invalid. He relied upon the case of Gurdev Singh Sidhu v. The State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1585. In that case the Supreme Court held that Article 9.1 of the pepsu Service Regulations was not outside the purview of Article 311 of the Constitution, because under that rule a permanent Government servant could be retired at the end of ten years of service. That rule was struck down as invalid, because the period after which the Government servant could be compulsorily required to retire was too short. That apology, however, does not apply to the case before us. Fundamental rule 56 permits the Government to compulsorily retire a Government servant only after he attains the age of 55 years. The age of 55 years is reasonably high. 14. In the case of Gurdev Singh Sidhu, The Supreme Court has referred to its three earlier cases viz. (i) Shyam Lal v. State of U.P. and the Union of India, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 369, where the validity of Article 465-A of the Civil Service Rules (Central) was examined. Under that Article the Government could retire an officer after he had completed 25 years of service without giving any reasons. (ii) State of Bombay v. Saubhag Chand M. Doshi, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 892. There the Supreme Court considered rule 165-A of the Bombay Civil Services rules. That rule gave the Government a similar right to retire a Government servant after he had completed 25 years of qualifying service or had attained the age of 50 years. (iii) Moti Ram Deka v. General Manager North East Frontier Railway, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 600. In that case the validity of the rule relating to compulsory retirement was not examined. In all these three cases, however, the Government servant could be compulsorily retired after attaining the age of 55 years or more and therefore the validity of the respective rules relating to compulsory retirement was upheld. 15. In that case the validity of the rule relating to compulsory retirement was not examined. In all these three cases, however, the Government servant could be compulsorily retired after attaining the age of 55 years or more and therefore the validity of the respective rules relating to compulsory retirement was upheld. 15. In the case of State of Bombay v. Saubhag Chand M. Doshi, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 892, the Supreme Court has laid down the test for determining as to whether or not the premature retirement in a particular case would be hit by Article 311 of the Constitution. It was observed :- "thus the real criteria for deciding whether an order terminating the services of a servant is one of dismissal, or removal is to ascertain whether it involves any loss of benefits previously earned. Applying this test, an order under rule 166-A cannot be held to be one of dismissal or removal as it does not entail forfeiture of the proportionate pension due for past services." 16. If it was found that the respondent would not be entitled to any benefit at all as a result of his compulsory retirement, the dictum of the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Saubhag Chand M. Doshi, would certainly be applicable. But as it is, the Government does not think that the respondent has lost all rights to pension. In these circumstances it is not possible to hold that the respondent has lost any benefit by way of pension already earned by him. The writ petition was premature. 17. For the reason stated above, I would allow this appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ petition of the respondent. In the circumstances of the case, however, I make no order as to costs. 18. By The Court - For the reason set out in our respective judgments, the appeal is allowed, the order of the learned single Judge is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.