ORDER G.P. SINGH, J. 1. The petitioner, Parmeshwar Dayal Pandey, entered Government service as Sub-Inspector of Police in the Central Provinces and Berar on 1st January 1950. The Central Provinces and Berar became the State of Madhya Pradesh (old) after coming into force of the Constitution on 26th January 1950. The petitioner continued in service in the State of Madhya Pradesh (old). The present State of Madhya Pradesh was formed on 1st November 1956 under section 9 of the States Reorganization Act, 1956. This new State comprises of the territories of the erstwhile States of Madhya Pradesh (except eight districts which were included in the State of Bombay) Madhya Bharat, Bhopal, Vindhya Pradesh and Sironj Sub-Division of Kota District of State of Rajasthan. The petitioner continued in service in the new State. The petitioner was promoted in 1964 as Circle Inspector. On 18th Mach 1975, the Inspector General of police (I.G.P.) passed an order compulsorily retiring the petitioner on the basis of his service record as he had completed twenty-five years of qualifying service under Rule 2 (3) (i) of the New Pension Rules, 1951. This order of compulsory retirement was withdrawn on 28th March 1975. However, by another order passed on 19th July 1975, the I.G.P. again ordered compulsory retirement of the petitioner under Rule 2 (3) (i) in the public interest with effect from the receipt of the order. The petitioner then filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the I.G.P. compulsorily retiring him from service. 2. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of compulsory retirement contravenes the proviso to section 11 (7) of the States Reorganisation Act, as it was passed under a rule which varies the conditions of service of the petitioner to his disadvantage without the previous approval of the Central Government as required by the proviso. 3. To appreciate the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to refer to the New Pension Rules. 1951, and the amendments made in them from time to time. These rules were made by the Governor of the former State of Madhya Pradesh under Article 309 of the Constitution in modification of the pension provisions in the Civil Service Regulations. 1951, and the amendments made in them from time to time. These rules were made by the Governor of the former State of Madhya Pradesh under Article 309 of the Constitution in modification of the pension provisions in the Civil Service Regulations. Rule 2 (1) of these rules fixed the amount of superannuation, retiring invalid and compensation gratuity and pension payable to a Government servant. Rule 2 (2) provided for retirement after completion of thirty years qualifying service by three months' notice given by either side. Rule 2 (3) (i) made provision enabling a Government servant to seek retirement after twenty-five years of qualifying service with the permission of the Government. Rule 2 (3) (ii) empowered the Government to retire a Government servant after twenty-five years of qualifying service on the ground of inefficiency. Rule 2 (4) provided for payment of pension to a Government servant who retired or who was permitted to retire in accordance with sub-rules (2) and (3). These rules which were made on 9th July 1951 were admittedly applicable to the petitioner before the formation of the new State of Madhya Pradesh in 1956. After the formation of the new state these rules were first amended by Notification No. 2332-IV-R-II dated 25th August 1964. The only amendment made by this Notification was to substitute sub-rule (2) of Rule 2. The material change made by the new sub-rule was that retirement of a Government Servant on three months' notice by either side could be brought about not only after completion of thirty years of qualifying service but also after attaining the age of fifty-five years. It may here be mentioned that at this stage the age of supersnution was increased from fifty-five to fifty-eight years by amending the relevant Fundsmental Rule to which we shall revert later in the course of this judgment. The second amendment to the rules was made by Notification No. 1247-R-1445-Iv-R-II 66 dated 7th June 1966 by this notification, a new Sub-rule (3) (11) of Rule 2 was substituted for the old sub-rule as follows:– R 2 (3) (ii) A retiring pension is also granted to a Government servant who is required to retire after competing a qualifying superior service of twenty-five years. The authority competent to retire a Government servant has an absolute right to retire him without giving any reasons after he has completed a qualifying superior service of twenty-five years and no claim to special compensation on this account will be entertained. This right shall not be exercised except when in the opinion of the competent authority it is necessary so to do in the public interest to dispense with the further service of a Government servant." 4. It will be noticed that the original Rule 2 (3) (i) of the New Pension Rules empowered the Government to retire a Government servantion the ground of inefficiency after a qualifying service of twenty-five years. The new Rule 2 (3) (ii) substituted by notification dated 7th June 1966 enabled the authority competent to retire a Government servant to retire him in the public interest after twenty-five years of qualifying service. The power to retire in the public interest conferred by the new Rule 2 (3) (ii) was wider than the power conferred by the original rule as the same could be used only in case of inefficiency. The new Rule 2 (3) (ii) was thus disadvantageous to those Government servants who were previously governed by the original Rule 2 (3) (ii). Under the proviso to section 115 (7) of the States Reorganisation Act, the new State could not vary the conditions of service of the Government servants who came from the constituent units to their disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Central Government. The State Government, therefore, obtained the concurrence of the Central Government before substituting the new Rule 2 (3) (ii) for the old rule by notification dated 7th June 1966. This Notification states that the amendment in the Rules was made in consultation with the Central Government under section 115 of the States Reorganisation Act. The use of the word "consultation" has given rise to the argument that approval or concurrence of the Central Government was not obtained as required by the proviso to section 115 (7) and consultation was not enough for substituting the new rule. The learned Government Advocate has placed before us the relevant file which shows that the new Rule 2 (3) (ii) was substituted with the concurrence of the Central Government communicated to the State Government by letter dated 18th May 1969. The learned Government Advocate has placed before us the relevant file which shows that the new Rule 2 (3) (ii) was substituted with the concurrence of the Central Government communicated to the State Government by letter dated 18th May 1969. A copy of this letter has also been filed along with un affidavit of the Assistant Inspector General of Police. The argument based on the use of the word "consultation" thus loses all force when it is found as a fact that the new Rule 2 (3) (ii) was substituted with the concurrence of the Central Government. 5. The New Pension Rules again came to be amended in 1972 by Notification No. 478-IF-R-11-72 dated 18th March 1972. In 1967 the age of superannuation had been reduced from fifty-eight to fifty-five years by amending F.R.56. Due to this change, the provision in Rule 2 (2) of the New Pension Rules for retirement on giving three months' notice by either side after the age of fifty-five years had become meaningless. The notification dated 18th March 1972 substitutes a new Rule 2 (2). The provision permitting retirement after completion of fifty-five years of age does not find place in the new Rule 2 (2). Another change is that the Government servant can seek retirement by giving three months' notice after twenty years of qualifying service. The Government's power to retire a Government servant after thirty years of qualifying service on three months' notice is retained in New Rule 2 (2). As the new Rule 2 (2) enables the Government servant to seek retirement as of right after twenty years of service by giving three months notice, it was useless to retain the provision of Rule 2 (3) (i) which enabled a Government servant to retire after twenty-five years, if permitted to do so by the Government. Rule 2 (3) (i) was, therefore dropped, Rule 2 (3) (ii) which was substituted by the notification dated 7th June 1966 has now become Rule 2 (3) (i) with slight modifications. It is under this rule that the petitioner has been retired. It reads as follows:– "R. 2 (3) (i) The authority competent to retire a Government servant has an absolute right to retire him without giving any reason after he had completed a qualifying superior service of twenty-five years and no claim to special compensation on this account shall be entertained. It reads as follows:– "R. 2 (3) (i) The authority competent to retire a Government servant has an absolute right to retire him without giving any reason after he had completed a qualifying superior service of twenty-five years and no claim to special compensation on this account shall be entertained. This right shall not be exercised except when in the opinion of the competent authority it is necessary so to do in the public interest to dispense with the services of a Government servant i.e. when administrative convenience is served or economy is effected by his retirement." 6. We have already disposed of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Rule 2 (3) (ii) which was substituted by notification dated 7th June 1966 and which enabled the appointing authority to retire a Government servant in the public interest after his completing twenty-five years of qualifying service was not brought in with the concurrence of the Central Government as required by the proviso to section 115 (7) of the State Reorganisation Act and we have pointed out that the argument is factually wrong because Rule 2 (1) (ii) was substituted in 1966 with the concurrence of the Central Government and there was no breach of the proviso to section 115 (7). However, the learned counsel has further argued that even if Rule 2 (3) (ii) was substituted in 1966 with the concurrence of the Central Government, that does not help the State Government as Rule 2 (3) (ii) substituted in 1972, under which the petitioner has been retired, was not substituted with the concurrence of the Central Government and therefore, the retirement of the petitioner is invalid being in breach of the proviso to section 115 (7). In our opinion, there is absolutely no merit in this argument. The power to retire a Government servant in the public interest after completion of twenty-five years of qualifying service was obtained by the Government under Rule 2 (3) (ii) substituted in 1966 with the concurrence of the Central Government. This power changed the service conditions of the Government servants who were absorbed from the constitutent units to their disadvantage and therefore prior approval or concurrence of the Central Government was necessary for the change. This power changed the service conditions of the Government servants who were absorbed from the constitutent units to their disadvantage and therefore prior approval or concurrence of the Central Government was necessary for the change. But the changes brought about in the service conditions by amendment of the rules by notification dated 18th March 1972 do not in any way prejudice the Government servants any further and. therefore, the concurrence of the Central Government was not necessary. The new Rule 2 (3) (i) substituted in 1972 is almost identically worded as the old Rule 2 (3) (ii) which was substituted in 1966. The only difference is that the expression "public interest" has been explained to mean cases where administrative convenience is served or economy is affected. It is an untenable argument that whenever any change is made in the rules affecting the conditions of service of Government servants who were previously serving in the constituent units of the new State concurrence of the Central Government should be obtained. If once the concurrence of the Central Government has been obtained to a particular change in the conditions of service because the change is disadvantageous to the Government servants concerned, no further concurrence is necessary after the same service condition is retained under a different rule. The point to be noted is that the proviso to section 115 (7) requires previous approval of the Central Government for a disadvantageous variation of the conditions of service and not to every change in service rules. We are, therefore of opinion that the petitioner's retirement under Rule 2 (3) (i) does not offend the proviso to section 115 (7) of the State Reorganisation Act. 7. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Rule 2 (3) (i) of the New Pension Rules substituted in March 1972 became inoperative and ineffective because of Act 29 of 1967 as amended by Act 4 of 1972, passed by the State Legislature on the subject of compulsory retirement. 8. To consider the above contention, it is necessary first to refer to the relevant rules and Acts. We have already referred to the New Pension Rules and the amendments made in them from time to time. In the former State of Madhya Pradesh the age of superannuation was governed by F.R. 56. 8. To consider the above contention, it is necessary first to refer to the relevant rules and Acts. We have already referred to the New Pension Rules and the amendments made in them from time to time. In the former State of Madhya Pradesh the age of superannuation was governed by F.R. 56. In 1956, the age of superannuation as fixed by F.R. 56 was fifty-five years except in the case of ministerial servants. The relevant rule as in force in 1956 at the time when the new State was formed read as follows:– "Age of Superannuation – F.R. 56 (a)–Except as otherwise provided in other clauses of this rule the date of compulsory retirement of a Government servant other than a ministerial servant, is the date on which he stains the age 55 years. He may be retained in service after the date of compulsory retirement with the sanction of the local Government on public grounds, which must be recorded in writing, but he must not be retained after the age of 60 years except in very special circumstances" By G.A.D. Memorandum No. 453-258-I (iii)/63 dated 28th February 1963, the Government of the new State decided to raise the age of superannuation to fifty-eight years subject to the power of the appointing authority to retire a Government servant after his attaining the age of fifty-five years on three month's notice. By notification dated 29th November 1963, F.R. 56 was amended with effect from 1st March 1963, raising the age of superannuation to fifty-eight years. The amendment however, by mistake, did not incorporate the power to retire a Government servant after the age of fifty-five years. One Shri I.N. Saksena, who was a District Judge, was retired after he attained the age of fifty-five years in exercise of the power reserved under the Memorandum although he had not attained the age of fifty-eight years and could not be retired under F.R. 56 as amended in 1963. Saksena challenged his retirement on the ground that reservation made in the Memorandum that a Government servant could be retired after attaining the age of fifty-five years on three month's notice was not incorporated in F.R. 56 and therefore. his retirement was invalid. Saksena challenged his retirement on the ground that reservation made in the Memorandum that a Government servant could be retired after attaining the age of fifty-five years on three month's notice was not incorporated in F.R. 56 and therefore. his retirement was invalid. The challenge failed in the High Court in I.N. Saksena vs. Stare of Madhya Pradesh, 1965 JLJ 223 = AIR 1964 MP 248 , Saksena, however, went in appeal to the Supreme Court. The State Government then made the Age of Compulsory retirement Rules, 1965, under, Article 309 of the Constitution by Notification No. 544-IV-R-II dated 16th July 1965. These rules were given retrospective effect from 1st March 1963, i e. the date from which the age of superannuation was raised from fifty-five to fifty-eight years by amending F.R. 56. Rule 2 of these 1965 rules provided that the age of compulsory retirement shall be fifty-eight years. Rule 6 empowered the appointing authority to retire a Government servant after completion of fifty-five years on three month's notice and similar right was conferred on the Government servants to seek retirement by Rule 7. When Saksena's appeal was heard in the Supreme Court, the 1965 Rules were not br0ught to the notice of the Court. Saksena succeeded on the ground that the Memorandum under which the power was reserved in favour of the Government to retire a Government servant after fifty-five years of age on three month's notice did not amount to a rule and could not be effective in face of F.R. 56, which without any reservation raised the age of superannuation to fifty-eight years I.N. Saksena vs. State of M.P., 1967 JLJ 507 = AIR 1964 SC 1264. To counteract the decision of the Supreme Court, the State Legislature passed the Madhya Pradesh Shasakiya Sevak Anivarya Sevanivriti ka Vidhimanyatakaran Adhiniyam, 1967 (Act 5 of 1967) By section 1 of this Act, it was declared that the Age of Compulsory Retirement Rules, 1965, shall be deemed to have come into force from 1st March 1963. By section 2 of the Act, it was provided that all actions taken under the Memorandum shall be deemed to be taken under the aforesaid rules. By section 2 of the Act, it was provided that all actions taken under the Memorandum shall be deemed to be taken under the aforesaid rules. By section 3, F.R. 56 was substituted with effect from 1st March 1963 providing that "subject to the provisions" of the Age of Compulsory Retirement Rules, 1965, the date of compulsory retirement of a Government servant, other than a class IV employee, is the date on which he attains the age of fifty-eight years." The statement of Objects and Reasons specifically referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Saksena case and stated that the Act was made to validate the retirement of Saksena and. similar other retirements. It may here be mentioned that the Act was preceded by an Ordinance in the same terms (Ordinance No. 2 of 1967). The Act succeeded in its object. Saksena, who challenged the Act in the second round of litigation, lost in the Supreme Court and the Act was held to be valid. I.N. Saksena vs. State of M.P., AIR 1976 SC 2250 . 9. By Notification No. 1196-IV-R-I- dated 25th September, 1967, the Age of Compulsory Retirement Rules, 1967, were promulgated in suppression of the 1965 Rules. The new rules came into force on 15th December 1967. By Rule 2 of these rules, the age of compulsory retirement, i.e. the age of superannuation was reduced to fifty-five years, Rule 4 provided for extension of service upto fifty-eight years subject to physical fitness and suitability. To bring about corresponding change in F.R. 56, Ordinance No. 12 of 1967 was promulgated on 10th October 1967. Section 2 of the Ordinance substituted F.R. 56 providing that subject to the Age of Compulsory Retirement Rules, 1967 the date of compulsory retirement of a Government servant, other than Class IV Government servant, shall be the date on which he attains the age of fifty-five years. The Ordinance was later replaced by the Madhya Pradesh Shasakiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 (Act No. 29 of 1967). 10. In 1972, the Government again decided to raise the age of superannuation or compulsory retirement to fifty-eight years subject to the reservation that a Government servant could be retired in the public interest on attaining the age of fifty-five years. The Ordinance was later replaced by the Madhya Pradesh Shasakiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 (Act No. 29 of 1967). 10. In 1972, the Government again decided to raise the age of superannuation or compulsory retirement to fifty-eight years subject to the reservation that a Government servant could be retired in the public interest on attaining the age of fifty-five years. With this object in view, the State Legislature enacted Act 4 of 1972 which amended Act 29 of 1967 and with effect from 21st April 1972, F.R. 56 was substituted as follows:– "56. Age of Superannuation–(1) subjects to the provision of sub-rule (3), the date of compulsory retirement of a Government servant other than a Class IV Government servant, shall be the date on which he attains the age of 58 years. Provided that scientific, technical and other personnel having special or expert knowledge in any field may, with the sanction of the competent authority be give extension of service beyond the age of 58 years subject to their physical fitness and suitability for work, but such extension shall not ordinarily be beyond the age of 60 years. (2) The date of compulsory retirement of a Class IV Government servant shall be the date on which he attains the age of 60 years. (3) A Government servant may in the public interest be retired at any time after he attains the age of 55 years on three months notice without assigning any reason or on payment of three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice." It will be seen that by F.R. 56, as substituted by Act 4 of 1972, the age of superannuation or compulsory retirement became fifty-eight years except in case of a Class IV Government servant. But under clause (3) of the rule the Government reserved a power to retire a Government servant in the public interest after his attaining the age of fifty-five years on three months notice or on payment of three month pay and allowances in lieu of notice. 11. We are now in a position to examine the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Rule 2 (3) (i) of the New Pension rules substituted by Notification dated 18th March 1972 under which the petitioner has been retired, became inoperative and ineffective by Act 29 of 1967 after it was amended by Act 4 of 1972. 11. We are now in a position to examine the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Rule 2 (3) (i) of the New Pension rules substituted by Notification dated 18th March 1972 under which the petitioner has been retired, became inoperative and ineffective by Act 29 of 1967 after it was amended by Act 4 of 1972. The argument of the learned counsel is that the topic of compulsory retirement became entirely covered by these Acts of the Legislature and therefore, the Pension rules providing for compulsory retirement after completion of twenty five years of qualifying service became ineffective being in conflict with the Acts. In this connection, it is pointed out that the rules made by the Governor under Article 309 of the Constitution have effect only subject to the provisions of any Act made by the State Legislature regulating the conditions of service. 12. Article 309 empowers the State Legislature to legislate on the subject of recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State. Under the proviso to Article 309, the Governor of the State or such person as he may direct can make rules regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed to such services and pasts until provision in that behalf is made by or under an Act of the State Legislature. The proviso further says that any rule so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of such Act. Apart from Article 309, the State Legislature has power under Entry 41 List II to legislate on the subject of "State Public Service, State Public Service Commission." The expression "conditions of service" has a very wide import and covers many topics, for example, period of probation, confirmation, leave, traveling allowance, pay, promotion, retirement, pension gratuity, etc. As the State Legislature has overriding power under Article 309 and Entry 41 list II the Governor's power to make rules under the proviso to Article 309 on a matter relating to conditions of service continues only until provision in that behalf is made by or under an Act of the State Legislature. But the power of the Governor to make rules is taken away only to the extent the conditions of service are regulated by the Act of the Legislature. But the power of the Governor to make rules is taken away only to the extent the conditions of service are regulated by the Act of the Legislature. It is not correct to say that the moment the State Legislates on a matter which falls within the subject of conditions of service, the power of the Governor to make rules on any matter relating to conditions of service comes to an end. The Governor's power ceases only to the extent the State Legislature covers the field on the subject of conditions of service; but on matters on which the State Legislature is silent or the field is clear, the Governor is free to make rules. Similarly, when rules are first made by the Governor and the Legislature later passes an Act on the subject of conditions of service, the rules made by the Governor have effect subject to the provisions of the Act. This only means that the rules in so far as they become in consistent with the Act cease to have effect. But on matters on which the Act is silent, the rules will continue to have their effect. In solving a question as to how far rules made by the Governor survive after passing of an Act by the Legislature under Article 309, it may be useful to derive assistance from the principles which are applied for determining question of repugnancy under Article 254 and for solving questions of implied repeal: See Municipal Council Palai vs. I.J. Joseph, AIR 1963 LC 1561. These principles, when applied for solving questions of conflict between the rules made by the Governor and an Act made by the Legislature under Article 309, will require that it should be seen (i) whether there is a conflict between the rules and the Act; (ii) whether the Legislature intended to lay down an exhaustive code in respect of the topic replacing the rules; and (iii) whether the rules and the Act occupy the same field. 13. The history of the rules and the Acts passed by the State Legislature will show that in 1956 when the new State was formed, the age of superannuation or compulsory retirement was regulated by F.R. 56. 13. The history of the rules and the Acts passed by the State Legislature will show that in 1956 when the new State was formed, the age of superannuation or compulsory retirement was regulated by F.R. 56. Retirement after completing thirty year of qualifying service on three months' notice and compulsory retirement after twenty-five years of qualifying service, at the instance of the Government, were regulated by the New Pension Rules. In 1963, F.R. 56 was amended and the age of superannuation or compulsory retirement was raised to fifty-eight years, the age of Compulsory Retirement Rules, 1965 were made conferring the power on the appointing authority to retire any Government servant after fifty-five years on three months notice. It will be seen that F.R. 56 as amended in 1963 and the Age of Compulsory Retirement Rules, 1965, did not touch the question of retirement or compulsory retirement after a qualifying period of service Act 5 of 1967 which was passed to validate the retirement of Saksena and similar other officers, also dealt with the age of compulsory retirement by substituting a new rule as F.R. 56 and by giving legislative sanction to the Age of Compulsory Retirement Rules, 1965, with effect from 1st March 1963. The Act did not cover the topic of retirement or compulsory retirement after a qualifying period of service. Similar is the position with Act 29 of 1967 as amended by Act 4 of 1972 F.R. 56 as substituted by these Acts fixes the age of superannuation or compulsory retirement as fifty-eight years and also enables the Government to compulsorily retire a Government servant after he attains the age of fifty-five years in the public interest on three months' notice. These Acts do not deal with retirement or compulsory retirement after a qualifying period of service. That matter continues to be governed as before by the New Pension Rules as amended from time to time. 14. The subject of retirement has many facts. Speaking generally, a Government servant automatically retires after he attains the age of superannuation. This is compulsory retirement on maturity of service. But provisions are usually made for compulsory retirement before maturity of service. 14. The subject of retirement has many facts. Speaking generally, a Government servant automatically retires after he attains the age of superannuation. This is compulsory retirement on maturity of service. But provisions are usually made for compulsory retirement before maturity of service. This is often done by providing that the Government will have the right to retire a Government servant after he attains a particular age or completes a particular period of qualifying service although he has not attained the age of superannuation. The provisions relating to compulsory retirement hold the balance between the rights of the individual Government servant and the interests of the public "while a minimum service is guaranteed to the Government servant, the Government is given power to energize its machinery and make it more efficient by compulsorily retiring those who, in its opinion, should not be there in public interest". Union of India vs. J.N. Sinha AIR 1971 SC 40 . Provisions are also made for voluntary retirement after a Government servant attains a particular age of completes a particular period of service. All such provisions for retirement may be contained in one set of rules or in different sets of rules. As earlier stated, the legislative history of the relevant rules and Acts in Madhya Pradesh shows that the topic of compulsory retirement on completing a particular period of service has all along been dealt with by the New Pension Rules; whereas compulsory retirement on attaining the age of superannuation and premature compulsory retirement on attaining a particular age were generally governed by F.R. 56 and the Age of Compulsory Retirement Rules made from time to time and Acts 5 of 1976, 29 of 1967 and 4 of 1972. The legislative intervention to provide for compulsory retirement at a particular age came first by Act 5 of 1967 to validate the retirement of Saksena and similar other officers The subsequent Acts also operate in the same area. Any change in this area can only be made by an Act of the Legislature as Governor's power to make rules under Article 309 cannot operate in this area. But beyond this area the field is clear. Any change in this area can only be made by an Act of the Legislature as Governor's power to make rules under Article 309 cannot operate in this area. But beyond this area the field is clear. Having regard to the legislative history, it cannot be said that Act 29 of 1967 as amended by Act 4 of 1972 intended to cover the field of compulsory retirement on completion of a particular period of service or that the Legislature intended to lay down an exhaustive code on the topic of compulsory retirement. There is no conflict between F.R. 56 as substituted by the provisions of these Acts and Rule 2 (3) (i) of the New Pension Rules relating to compulsory retirement after completion of twenty-five years of qualifying service. There can be premature compulsory retirement of a Government servant after he completes fifty-five years of age under F.R. 56 (3) as substituted by Act 29 of 1967 (as amended by Act 4 of 1972). Premature compulsory retirement of a Government servant can also be brought about after he completes twenty-five years of qualifying service under Rule 2 (3) (i) of the New Pension Rules. There is no inconsistency between the New Pension Rules and the provisions of the Acts of the Legislature. Applying the principles stated earlier, we are of the opinion that the rules contained the New Pension Rules providing for compulsory retirement continue to be effective. 15. It is lastly contended that when the order of compulsory retirement under Rule 2 (3) (i) passed by the I.G.P. was once withdrawn, another order could not be passed under the same rule. We have already stated that the I.G.P. first passed an order on 18th March 1975 retiring the petitioner under Rule 2 (3) (i) of the New Pension Rules. This order was withdrawn on 28th March 1975. The impugned order retiring the petitioner under Rule 2 (3) (i) was then passed by the I.G.P. on 19th July 1975. It has been stated in the affidavit by the Assistant Inspector Central of Police that a committee was constituted by the I.G.P. on 17th March 1975 to scrutinize the cases of officers who were to be retired compulsorily in the public interest The petitioner's case was not examined by the committee when the first order was passed on 18th March 1975. That order was, therefore, withdrawn so that the petitioner's case may also be examined by the committee constituted on 17th March 1975. The committee examined the case of the petitioner and recommended his retirement in the public interest. This recommendation was accepted by the IG.P and therefore, he passed the impugned order on 19th July 1975 retiring the petitioner under Rule 2 (3) (i). On the facts stated above, it cannot be said that because the order dated 18th March 1975 was withdrawn by the I.G.P. the impugned order could not be passed by him compulsorily retiring the petitioner. The first order was withdrawn not on any finding that the petitioner's record was good or that the public interest would not be served by retiring him but simply to enable the committee constituted on 17th March 1975 to scrutinize the petitioner's case. When this committee after examining the petitioner's record, recommended that the petitioner should be compulsorily retired in the public interest, the I.G.P. accepted the recommendation. In our opinion, there is no flaw in the impugned order passed by the I.G.P. Had the order dated 18th March 1975 been withdrawn on merits, it may have been possible to urge that the respondents should show some subsequent conduct of the petitioner or some other subsequent event justifying his compulsory retirement in the public interest and that the petitioner's compulsory retirement could not be ordered on the facts existing on 18th March 1975 when it was once found that his retirement on those facts was not in public interest. But as earlier pointed out, the factual position in the instant case is different. The order dated 18th March 1975 was not withdrawn on merits but only to enable the scrutiny of the petitioner's case by a committee which was constituted to scrutinize the cases of similar other officers. 16. The petition fails and is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. The amount of the security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner.