Judgment This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing Annexure' l' to the writ application, a letter dated the 25th May, 1972, from the Divisional Superintendent (P), Samastipur, to the petitioner, informing him that he was to retire from service on and from the 2nd. July, 1972. 2. In the year 1935, the petitioner was appointed a marker in the then Bengal & North-Western Railway (hereinafter referred to as 'B.N.W.R.'). In the year 1936, he was promoted to the post of Loading Foreman. In the year 1938 (before the 1st. April, 1938), he was confirmed to the post of Loading Foreman. In January 1943, the management of B.N.W.R. was taken over by the Government of India. While serving under the Government, in the year 1946 the petitioner was promoted to the post of a goods clerk. On, the 6th February, 1967, he was further promoted to the post of Head Goods clerk. On the 4th March, 1971, he was elected for promotion to the post of the Chief Goods Clerk; but before he could be actually promoted, the impugned letter (Annexure 1') was served upon him.' The petitioner claims that he is a ministerial servant under the Railways within the meaning of rule 2003 (17) of Chapter XX of the Rail way Fundamental Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'); and according to the provisions of rule 2046, as it stands at present, he cannot be retired before completing the age of 60 years. In the alternative, he claims that even if he is a non-ministerial servant under the said rule he cannot be retired before completing the age of 58 years. In paragraph 8 of the writ petition, he asserts that at the time of his appointment he declared that date of his birth as the 2nd of July, 1916 which was 'accepted by the Railway administration. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 have entered appearance and shown cause to the rule issued by this Court. Respondent no. 3, Divisional Superintendent (P), Samastipur, has not entered appearance. In their show cause, respondents 1 and 2 have not denied that the petitioner at the time of his appointment declared the age of his birth as the 2nd. July, 1916, and it was accepted by the Railway administration. According to them, the petitioner is not a ministerial servant. Respondent no. 3, Divisional Superintendent (P), Samastipur, has not entered appearance. In their show cause, respondents 1 and 2 have not denied that the petitioner at the time of his appointment declared the age of his birth as the 2nd. July, 1916, and it was accepted by the Railway administration. According to them, the petitioner is not a ministerial servant. Goods clerks, it is said, do not perform clerical jobs, and therefore, they are not ministerial servants. Really, those, who are working as loading foremen, were designated as goods clerks. It is further alleged that while the clerks ordinarily have to perform duties relating to files and are either attached to an officer or an office for typing, noting and other allied office works, the duties of goods clerks are to deal with the public, book inward and outwards goods traffic, handle cash of the Railway Company and also are to maintain valuable cash books. For this purpose, a goods clerk has to be technically qualified by passing the requisite examination and further to deposit cash security for handling cash of the Railway administration. It is further alleged in their show cause that the petitioner is an ex-Company employee having opted to retain the conditions and terms of service which entailed retirement at the age of 55 years, and there Core he cannot take advantage of rule 2046. In this connection, reference has been made in the show cause to a letter bearing no. 67/RT-8 dated the 22nd September, 1967 from the Railway Board clarifying that fixation of age would not apply to ex-Company employees who had not opted in to for the Government Railway Service conditions and further that such employees would be governed by the Board's letter dated the 26th April, 1963. The letter dated the 22nd September, 1967, has been made Annexure 'E' to the show cause, while the letter dated the 26th April, 1963, has been made Annexure 'C' to it. A communication dated the 23rd November, 1967, has also been made Annexure 'F' to the show cause which shows that the Railway Board asserted that what was stated in Annexure E had the sanction of the President of India. A document dated the 1st. August, 1951, has been made Annexure 'B' to the show cause which clarifies which categories of Railways servants are ministerial servants. 4. A document dated the 1st. August, 1951, has been made Annexure 'B' to the show cause which clarifies which categories of Railways servants are ministerial servants. 4. The petitioner has filed a reply to the show cause of the respondents in which he asserts that the statements made in paragraph 7 of the show cause about his having opted to retain the terms made conditions of service which entailed retirement age at 55 years was incorrect. 5. Rule 2003 (17) of the Rules runs as follows : "Ministerial servant - means a railway servant of a subordinate service whose duties are entirely clerical, and any other class of servants specially defined as such by general or special order of a competent authority." On January 11, 1967, old rule 2046 of the Rules was amended and a new rule was substituted. Clauses (a) and (b) together with the note to sub-clause (b) read as follows: "2046 (F.R. 56) - (a) Except as otherwise provided in this rule, every railway servant shall retire on the day he attains the age of fifty-eight 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 the Rule 2008 and continued to hold the same without interruption until he was confirmed in that post, shall be retained in service till the day he attains the age of sixty years. Note: For the purpose of this Clause, the expression 'Government Service, includes service rendered in ex-Company, and ex-state Railways, and in former provincial Government." On December 12, 1967, the Note to clause (b) of rule 2046 defining the expression "Government Service" was deleted, and a new Note was substituted in its place. The note which was substituted was as follows: "For the purpose of this clause the expression 'Government Service' includes service rendered in a former Provincial Government and in ex-Company and ex-State Railways, if the rules of the Company or the State had a provision similar to Clause (b) above." In the Railway Board and another V.A. Pitchumani the vires of the Note to clause (b) of rule 2046, as amended on December 12, 1967, was challenged. Their Lordships held that the words "If the rules of the Company or the State had a provision similar to Clause (b) above" were discriminatory in nature and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The learned Judges of the Supreme Court, therefore, struck down that part of the rule. Now, the rules with which we are concerned in this case read as follows: "2046 (F.R. 56) - (a) Except as otherwise provided in this rule, every railway servant shall retire on the day he attains the age of fifty-eight 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 the Rule 2008 and continued to hold the same without interruption until he was confirmed in that post, shall be retained in service till the day he attains the age of sixty years. Note: - for the purpose of this clause the expression 'Government Service' includes service rendered in a former Provincial Government and ex-State Railways." If this rule is to apply to the petitioner, then if he is a ministerial servant, he cannot be made to retire before completing the age of sixty years; and, even he is a non-ministerial servant, he cannot be made to retire before completing the age of 58 years. Admittedly, on the date Annexure 1' was issued or even to-day, the petitioner has not completed fifty eight years of age. Two questions, therefore, arise for determination in this case: firstly, whether rule 2046 is not to apply to the petitioner because he opted to retain the terms and conditions service of the Company, and, secondly, whether he is a ministerial servant within the meaning of the "term as defined in rule 2003 (17) of the Rules. The allegation in the show cause of the respondents that the petitioner opted to retain the terms and conditions of service under the Company is vague. It does not state on what date the petitioner gave his option. The petitioner must have opted in writing. No such document has been filed before us. Any other document also showing that on account of the alleged option the petitioner received some benefits has not been filed before us. It does not state on what date the petitioner gave his option. The petitioner must have opted in writing. No such document has been filed before us. Any other document also showing that on account of the alleged option the petitioner received some benefits has not been filed before us. As stated earlier, the petitioner in reply to the show cause of the respondent has denied the fact that he opted to retain the terms and conditions of service under the Company. In the circumstances, we do not find it possible to accept the statement made in the show cause that the petitioner opted to retain the terms and conditions of service under the Company. We proceed, therefore, to decide the case on the assumption that the petitioner did not opt for the terms and conditions of service under the Company. Rule 2046, therefore cannot be held to be not applicable to the petitioner on the ground that he opted to retain the terms and conditions of service under the Company. 6. According to the definition of the term "ministerial servant" in the rule 2003 (17) of the Rules, a Railway servant whose duties are entirely clerical, and any other class of servant, specially defined as such by general or special order of a competent authority, is a ministerial servant. In paragraph 6 of the writ application, the petitioner has alleged that his function was "to make and reply the correspondence with the public and Railway administration after getting the letter signed by Station Master concerned, booking and delivery of goods and maintain accounts, registers etc., realise cash from the parties and deliver it to the Station Master for further remittance and maintain files and records of the Station Master concerning goods which are entirely clerical nature of work". In paragraph 6 of the show cause, respondents 1 and 2 have stated: "Goods clerk, Transshipment Clerks, Booking Clerks etc. In paragraph 6 of the show cause, respondents 1 and 2 have stated: "Goods clerk, Transshipment Clerks, Booking Clerks etc. are different from clerks inasmuch as ordinarily clerks have to perform duties relating to files and are either attached to an officer or an office for typing, noting and other allied office works; while the duties of Goods Clerk are to deal with the public, book inward and outward goods traffic, handle cash of the Railway Company and also are to maintain valuable cash books." In our opinion, the duties which a goods clerk has to perform, even according to respondents 1 and 2, are clerical in nature. In common use, according to the Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary, the word "clerk" in common use, means "one employed as writer, assistant copyist, account-keeper or correspondent in an office". A person doing clerical work may have to deal with the public in discharge of his duties; but on that account it cannot be said that his duties are not clerical. Admittedly, the petitioner has to make entries in bonks. We therefore, do not find it possible to accept the contention of respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioner does not perform clerical duties and, therefore, he is not a ministerial servant. Even according to Annexure ‘B’ a document filed by respondents 1 and 2 themselves, Chief/Head Clerks are ministerial servants. Admittedly, on the date of issue of Annexure 1', the petitioner was Goods Head Clerk Annexure 'B' no where says that the expression 'Head Clerk' in it would exclude Goods Head Clerks. Therefore, the expression "Head Clerks" as used in Annexure 'B' is wide enough to include even Goods Head clerks. Even if the duties assigned to the petitioner may not be entirely clerical, he is a ministerial servant within the meaning of the term as defined in rule 2003 (17) of the Rules on the ground that 'Head Clerks' have been specifically defined as ministerial servants in Annexure B to the show cause. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, in our opinion, the petitioners could not have been made to retire before completing the age of sixty years. Annexure 1' to the writ petition was illegally issued, and it must be quashed. We, accordingly, allow this writ application and quash Annexure 1' to the writ petition. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.