ORDER Gur Sharan Lal, J. - This writ petition has been filed by Binda Lal who is an employee of the Northern Railway and is posted at Lucknow. Binda Lal entered service under the East Indian Railway on May 14, 1936 as Store Munshi. By promotion he became a clerk from 17-6-1937 and was confirmed as such from 10-6-1940. On taking over of the East Indian Railway by the Government of India he had become an employee of the Northern Railway. He had further promotions and from 1-4-1954 he began to work as Head Clerk. He was confirmed on that post with effect from 2-8-1961. 2. The petitioner was born on 5th July, 1913. He attained the age of 58 years on July 4. 1971 and he would be sixty years of age on 4th July. 1973. While he was working as Head Clerk under the Northern Railway a paper was circulated showing the names of 18 persons and the dates from which they were to retire. The petitioner was also shown therein and his date of retirement was as 4-7-1971. The petitioner made a representation that he was entitled to continue in service unto the age of 60 Years as he had been appointed prior to 1-4-1938. The representation was, however, rejected and he received retirement notice dated 1-5-1971 which is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. There upon the petitioner presented the above mentioned writ petition in this Court on 21-5-1971. On an application for interim relief the opposite parties were restrained from retiring the petitioner and that is why he continued in service beyond 4-7-1971. 3. The rule of retirement with which the petitioner is concerned is as follows:- "2046. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this rule every railway servant shall retire on the day he attains the age of 58 years. (b) A ministerial Railway servant, who entered Government service on or before the 31st March, 1938 and held on that date (i) a lien or a suspended lien on a permanent post or. (ii) a permanent post in a provisional substantive capacity under clause (d) of Rule 2008 and continued to hold the same without interruption until he was confirmed in that post, shall be retained in service till the date he attains the age of 60 years. (ii) a permanent post in a provisional substantive capacity under clause (d) of Rule 2008 and continued to hold the same without interruption until he was confirmed in that post, shall be retained in service till the date he attains the age of 60 years. Note:- For the purpose of this clause the expression "Government service" includes service rendered in a former Provincial Government and in ex-company." Keeping in view the note appended at the end of the rule, it has to be admitted that the petitioner entered into 'Government service' before 31st March, 1938. But for the application of clause (b) of the rule to him he ought to have either held on the said date a lien or a suspended lien on a permanent post or he should have held a permanent post in a provisionally substantive capacity. It is clear from Annexure B to the counter affidavit of the opposite parties that the petitioner was even upto 1939 only a temporary employee. So clause (b) of the rule cannot apply to him and he cannot get any benefit out of it. 4. The second contention of the petitioner is that to keep the age of retirement for some employees as 58 years and others as 60 years is invalid because there is no reasonable basis apparent for making this discrimination. His learned counsel has argued that on this ground the petitioner is entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years. In support of his argument the learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention to decision of my own reported in 1971 All LJ from page 49 = ( AIR 1971 All 104 ) under the title B.P. Misra v. Union of India. It is true that in that decision the part of the rule which contains the provision for retirement at the age of 58 years was declared discriminatory and invalid. That was because in spite of repeated demands from the learned Counsel for the Union of India to disclose the relevancy of the date 31st March, 1938 to the division of railway employees into two classes for the purposes of retirement, one class retiring at the age of 58 and the other at the age 60 years, nothing could be shown as to what connection this date had with the matter of retirement. It could therefore be supposed that the date 31st March, 1938 was only an arbitrary date having no nexus with retirement and to discriminate between the railway employees in the matter of retirement by dividing them into two classes on the basis of appointment before and after that date would be unreasonable. The position has however changed in the Present case because effort has been made successfully in this case to show why the railway employees taken in employment upto 31st March, 1938 were given the benefit of retirement at the age of 60 years while for others the retirement age was kept as 55 years (later raised to 58 years). Credit for it goes to Shri Saghir Ahmad, learned counsel for the Union of India. 5. On behalf of the opposite parties one supplementary counter affidavit dated 23-2-1972 was filed on 18-3-1972 along with some annexures when the case was taken up for hearing. After adjournment and permission to file another supplementary counter affidavit the supplementary counter affidavit dated 18-3-1972 was filed on 21-3-1972. These supplementary counter affidavits and the annexures make out certain facts. Before 1-4-1938, though for ministerial servants of the Govt. of India including railway servants, the age for retirement was 55 years but such servants were ordinarily required to be retained in service upto the age of 60 years if they continued efficient. This was so laid down in Fundamental R. 56 which had been made applicable in the same form to railway servants. A committee on the problem of unemployment, known as Sapru Committee, however made the recommendation that the rule regarding the age of retirement should be vigorously enforced and with a view to give a fair chance to youngmen, no extension should be granted to any public servant after he has completed the 55th year of age. Government of India considered this recommendation in early 1938 and accepted it in principle. It was accepted that the recommendation could be applied to future entrants but it would not be fair to retire existing ministerial servants at the age of 55 years. Certain words of the Home Member in his two minutes dated 7-2-1938 and 8-3-1938 are given below (vide Para 3 of supplementary counter affidavit dated 18-3-1972) : "As regards the merits of the actual proposal made in Paragraph 207 (5) (f) of the Sapru Committee's Report. Certain words of the Home Member in his two minutes dated 7-2-1938 and 8-3-1938 are given below (vide Para 3 of supplementary counter affidavit dated 18-3-1972) : "As regards the merits of the actual proposal made in Paragraph 207 (5) (f) of the Sapru Committee's Report. I am on the whole opposed to reducing the age for compulsory retirement for ministerial officers from 60 to 55. If a change is to be made in the rules I think it would be a considerable hardship to enforce the change in the case of other than future entrants." and " ...............It does not seem to have been noticed that the change proposed would be a departure from a Principle which hitherto has been, so far as I am aware, scrupulously maintained viz, that change in conditions of service to the detriment of public servants shall apply only to future entrants. There would, I think, be a distinct danger in making such a departure from principle in the case of ministerial servants." 6. It becomes clear from the above discussion that the division of railway employees into the classes those appointed after 31-3-1938 and those appointed before the said date - for the purpose of retirement at different ages has a rational basis and the rule is therefore not invalid. 7. For the above reasons the writ petition is found to have no force and is dismissed. Both the parties will however, bear their own costs. The interim order is cancelled.