NARAYANA PAI, C. J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner who was working as an Under Secretary to Government in the Public Works Department was retired from service by an order dated 23rd Ocober, 1969 with effect from 24th October, 1969 under note 1 to Rule 285 of the Mysore Civil Services Rules. This writ petition is directed against the said notice and it is prayed that the same may be quashed. ( 2 ) THE legal argument is that, Note 1 to Rule 285 of the MCSR. as it stood on the date of the notice was a rule which had varied to the petitioner's disadvantage a condition of service applicable to him immediately before the reorganisation of States, i. e. 1-11-1956. The petitioner was a servant of the State Government of the erstwhile State of Mysore and became an allottee to the new State of Mysore under the States Reorganisation act. The corresponding regulation which was applicable was regulation No. 298 of the Mysore Services Regulations, Eighth Edition, which was in force at the time of the reorganisation of States. That regulation read as follows:"a retiring pension is granted to a Government servant who is permitted to retire after completing qualifying superior service for thirty years or such less time as may for any special class of Govt. servants be prescribed. Note: Govt. may, in special cases require any Govt. servant to retire from service under this Article if he has reached the age of 50 or put in 25 years of qualifying service if such retirement is considered necessary in the public interest. " ( 3 ) IN the Revised Pension Rules set out in appendix-A to the same (eighth) edition, there is the following rule numbered as rule 2. " 2 (i) Th6 amount of superannuation retiring compensation and invalid pension and compensation gratuity will be the appropriate amount set out in Schedule-A. (ii) A Govt. Servant may retire from service any time after completing 30 years qualifying service provided that he shall give in this behalf a notice in writing to the appropriate authority at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire. Govt. may in special cases, require any Govt. Servant may retire from service any time after completing 30 years qualifying service provided that he shall give in this behalf a notice in writing to the appropriate authority at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire. Govt. may in special cases, require any Govt. servant to retire any time after he has completed 25 years qualifying service or on attaining 50 years age if such retirement is considered necessary in the public interest provided that the appropriate authority shall give in this behalf a notice in writing to the Government servant at least three months before the date on which he is required to retire. " ( 4 ) THE first Note to rule 285 of the MSR. is the same with some alterations, one made by an amendment of October 1966 and another of january 1968. Under the first named amendment, the latter part of the rule was substituted by the following words:"government may, by order, retire any Govt. servant after he has completed twenty-five years of qualifying service or after he has attained fifty years of age, if such retirement is in their opinion necessary in the public interest, provided that Govt. servant concerned is given notice of three months before the date of retirement, or in lieu of such notice, a sum equivalent to the amount of his salary for a period of three months. " the second amendment added the following at the end: "but the pension shall not be payable for the period in respect of which he received salary in lieu of notice. " ( 5 ) THESE amendments, according to the argument of Mr. S. G. Bhat on behalf of the petitioner, were such as to vary to his disadvantage the condition of service as determined by the rule applicable to him immediately before 1-11-1956, brought about without the previous approval of the Central Government, and therefore, the rule, as altered, was not enforceable against him. ( 6 ) THAT at the time the order of retirement was made, these amendments had not received the previous approval of the Central Government is conceded. Hence the question is, whether the amendments did result in variation of the condition of sendee to the petitioner's dis-advantage. ( 6 ) THAT at the time the order of retirement was made, these amendments had not received the previous approval of the Central Government is conceded. Hence the question is, whether the amendments did result in variation of the condition of sendee to the petitioner's dis-advantage. ( 7 ) IT is contended that there is such disadvantage in three respects, namely, (1) whereas the previous rule permitted compulsory retirement only in special cases, the omission of reference to the speciality of the case in the rule as amended, is such a disadvantageous variation; (2) the provision for payment of salary in lieu of notice is said to be another such variation and (3) pension is to be calculated on the footing that the petitioner or a person served with similar notice retired on the date ot the notice or on the date on which the payment is made in lieu of notice, and not at the expiry of the period of notice, thus depriving him of the benefit of higher pension, in the event of there being an increment stage during the period of notice. ( 8 ) ON the first point, although the words "in special cases" occurring in the previous rule have disappeared in the amendment, we have not been able to understand how and in what respect the considerations justifying the order of compulsory retirement are not similar both under the old rule as well as under the amended rule. There is no doubt whatever that the one and only circumstance which justifies such an order of compulsory retirement is the opinion of the Government that it is necessary to do so in public interest. We repeatedly asked Mr. Bhat what exactly was his idea of the expression special cases' '; he has not been able to tell us how and in what respect a 'special case' is different from a case in which it is necessary in public interest to retire a Government servant. Mr. Bhat added that some idea of a 'special case may be gathered if we take note of the difference between a decision that it is desirable to retire persons above a particular age even though they may be otherwise efficient, and a decision to retire persons upon certain special considerations such as corruption, extreme inefficiency etc. Mr. Bhat added that some idea of a 'special case may be gathered if we take note of the difference between a decision that it is desirable to retire persons above a particular age even though they may be otherwise efficient, and a decision to retire persons upon certain special considerations such as corruption, extreme inefficiency etc. But the difference between these two is no more than the difference that exists even at present. in ordinary cases, there is the rule of superannuation that they should retire after completing 55 years of age. That rule involves a policy decision or opinion that after the said age, it is not desirable to retain persons in service, whatever may be their standard of efficiency. Where a decision is taken to retire a person even before the said period, either on the ground of inefficiency or on the ground of corruption that decision involves the opinion that it is necessary in public interest to retire such a person. ( 9 ) WE are therefore satisfied that, by omission of the words in special cases', no difference in the scope and operation of the rule has been brought about. Much less can, therefore, the petitioner say that there has been a variation to his disadvantage. ( 10 ) THE payment of salary in lieu of notice cannot possibly be described as a disadvantage. If the procedure adopted is to retire a person at the expiry of the period of notice, the person sought to be retired is expected to work for the entire period prescribed. When he is sent away at the commencement of the period itself on payment of salary for the said period, he actually gets it without doing any work. The payment in lieu of notice, therefore, is an advantage rather than a disadvantage to the person who receives payment. ( 11 ) THE third possibility of a disadvantage is stated to relate to the calculation of pension. And special dependence is placed upon the amendment of January, 1968 which added the words 'but the pension shall not be payable for the period in respect of which he received salary in lieu of notice. " By virtue of these words, it is contended that calculation of pension is made as if the petitioner retired on the date of notice, and not at the expiry of the period of notice. " By virtue of these words, it is contended that calculation of pension is made as if the petitioner retired on the date of notice, and not at the expiry of the period of notice. Whether in fact such a calculation is made or not, one thing that is perfectly clear to us is that the words extracted above added to Note I to Rule 285 in January, 1968 will not support such an inference. Those words indicate that, for the period in respect of which a Government servant is paid salary, he cannot be paid pension also. It is a most obvious statement of fact, because pension is payable in respect of the period after retirement when a person has ceased to work. Salary is a payment for work; pension is a retirement benefit. Therefore, when salary is paid for the notice period, the necessary legal consequence is that, for the period in respect of which Government servant is paid salary, he must be regarded as working and he becomes entitled to receive pension at the expiry of the period in respect of which salary has been paid in lieu of notice. If so, the calculation of average salary and other matters for the purpose of determining pension must be made from the date of the expiry of the notice period backwards into the period of service. Hence, even if an increment becomes due during the period of notice, that increment, in our opinion, must be taken into account, not only for the purpose of calculating the amount of salary to be paid in lieu of notice but also for determining pension. ( 12 ) THERE is thus no alteration or variation of any condition of service to the disadvantage of the petitioner brought about by the two amendments of 1966 and 1968, to the first note appended to "rule 285 of the Mysore Civil Services Rules. ( 13 ) ON the merits of the case, the relevant considerations and the legal principles governing the same are now so well established by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court referred to and discussed in the order of this Court dated 27th December, 1970 in Writ Petition No. 4277 of 1970 (1) and connected cases, that it is unnecessary to repeat the same. As pointed out in the said order, the only matter open for consideration is one of mala fides, namely whether decision has been taken by the government on collateral considerations or arbitrarily without any statable reason in support of it. ( 14 ) THE affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government as well as the original papers placed before us make it clear that the case of the petitioner was examined by a screening committee consisting of senior officials and the ultimate decision was taken after a consideration of the opinion of the Screening Committee, by not only senior Ministers but also the entire Cabinet. ( 15 ) WE have not been able to discover any fact or circumstance which may be relied upon even to suggest mala fides or any personal bias on the part of any of the persons who contributed to the ultimate decision of retirement. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. --- *** --- .