JUDGMENT 1. - This is a petition challenging the order of retirement of the petitioner at the age of 58 years on 30.6.72. 2. The petitioner joined the former Jodhpur State Railway on 25.12.1972 and after the merger of the State Railway became an employee of Northern Railway. He is working as a Peon. In terms of definition of rule 2202 (12) of Railway Supplementary Rules. Inferior service includes amongst others Peons. It is conceded that the petitioner was not holding a pensionable post while employed in the former Jodhpur State Railway. The Pension Scheme on the Indian Railway was brought into force with effect from 1.4.57. The petitioner exercised his option for the Railway Liberalised Pension Rules on 28.6.66. From that date onwards the petitioner was governed by the Pension Rules, but it is common case that prior to the above date including the period when he was serving in the Jodhpur State Railway the petitioner was not holding a pensionable post. 3. The Pensionable Inferior Railway Servants (Gratuity, Pension and Retirement) Rules (hereinafter to be called 'the Rules') had been framed to apply to pensionary Railway Servants specified in Schedule 1 i.e. All Inferior Staff Rule 9 of the rules says that a Railway Servant shall retire when he has attained the age of 60 years. After the merger of the Jodhpur and other State Railways with the Indian Railways the question naturally arose with regard to some of the service conditions of those ex-State employees. Accordingly the Railway Board with the sanction of the President issued a letter No. 23 E-14/152 dated 10.7.52 dealing with the retirement age of Class IV Staff of ex-State Railway. The letter stated that clarificatory order in respect of age of retirement of Class IV staff of the ex-State Railways were being issued. Para 2 (a) was as under:- "In the case of non-pensionable class IV staff and labourers including Workshop employees of the Ex.State Railways who elect the Civil Procedure Code scales of pay, the retirement age will be 55 years. In the case of pensionable class IV staff (other than workshop staff) however, the retirement age will be 60 years as laid down in rule 9 (without proviso) of the Pensionable (class IV) Railway Servants (Gratuity, Pension and Retirement) Rules. In the case of pensionable class IV staff (other than workshop staff) however, the retirement age will be 60 years as laid down in rule 9 (without proviso) of the Pensionable (class IV) Railway Servants (Gratuity, Pension and Retirement) Rules. Necessary orders to extend the application of these rules to the pensionable class IV staff of ex-State Railways will be issued separately." The Divisional Office of the Northern Railway, Jodhpur issued a circular dated 7.6.71 giving a list of employees who would retire in May, June, 1972 and December, 1971. The petitioner's date of retirement was shown as 30.6.72 on his attaining the age of 58 years. It may be mentioned that the age of 58 is the one which is now provided under rule 2046 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code by which non-pensionable Railway employee is to retire at the age of 58 years. The petitioner apparently took up the matter that his age of retirement is 60 but the Department not having agreed he has come up to this Court in a writ petition. 4. Mr. Purohit learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely on the second part of Para 2(a) of the above letter issued by the Railway Board Pensionable Class IV staff, and contends that the petitioner is entitled to go up to the age of 60 years. Mr. Bhansali had sought to argue that the second part of Para 2(a) is not at all applicable because it is only giving a reference to the employees who were governed by the said rules and he sought to emphasise this argument by referring to the later portion of this para where it was stated that necessary orders to extend the application of these rules to the pensionable Class IV Staff of the ex-State Railways shall be issued separately. The argument being that second part of Para 2(a) deals specifically with the employees who were mentioned in the Schedule I and the rules were only to be applied subsequently and as there is nothing to show that orders have been so issued the petitioner cannot take any advantage of it. I cannot agree. The letter clearly indicates that the Board had taken a decision with regard to the ex-State Railways, their age of retirement will be 60 years as laid down in the Rules. I cannot agree. The letter clearly indicates that the Board had taken a decision with regard to the ex-State Railways, their age of retirement will be 60 years as laid down in the Rules. I can see no other purpose in referring to these Rules if it was not for this purpose, because otherwise these Rules which were applicable to other employees had no need to be mentioned here. The only reason why they are being mentioned is to emphasise that as the Railway was already giving the advantage of retirement age of 60 years to its Inferior Staff who were holding reasonable posts, the same advantage and treatment will be given to those Railway employees who were having pensionable posts in the ex-State Railways. But this interpretation would bring no solace to the petitioner because admittedly he was not holding any pensionable post in the ex-State Railway. Mr. Purohit however urged that this part will be applicable even if the petitioner did not hold a pensionable post but came to hold a pensionable post during the course of his employment. The argument is that as by 1966 the petitioner was governed by the Railway Liberalised Pension Rules, he must be deemed to have been holding a pensionable post and therefore by virtue of rule 9 of the rules his age of retirement will be 60 years. He suggested that this was the only meaning to be given to this letter and even if this be not the best meaning, this was the nearest meaning that could be given to the wording of this letter and referred to Mukerjea v. Karnani Industrial Bank AIR 1930 Calcutta 771 for this purpose. There is no difficulty in accepting the principle laid down for interpretation and the caution that the court will necessarily give the interpretation which the language of the statute or the rule is capable of bearing and not the interpretation which the court may think best. But it is unmistakably clear from the letter that a decision is being taken between two categories, one those who were holding pensionable posts, and the other those who were holding non pensionable posts. But it is unmistakably clear from the letter that a decision is being taken between two categories, one those who were holding pensionable posts, and the other those who were holding non pensionable posts. I cannot agree with the contention that the staff even if they were holding non pensionable posts at the issue of the letter in 1952, but come to opt for pensionable rules any time thereafter will have their age of retirement raised from 55 to 60. This interpretation puts too speculative and vague purpose to the rules making authority. The authorities were obviously concerned with the practicable aspect namely to provide for the retirement age of ex-State Railway Staff. This they did by straight Class IV Staff. The period of time which had to be seen whether an ex-State Railway employee was holding a pensionable post was the period when he was a State Railway employee because it is in connection with the ex-State Railway employees that this decision was taken in 1952. As the petitioner admittedly was not holding a pensionable post in the ex-Jodhpur State Railway he cannot claim that 60 years was his retirement age. His case was clearly covered by the first part of Para 2(c) of the letter which provides that in case of non pensionable class IV staff, the retirement age will be 55 years later on raised to 58 years. In my view there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed but with no costs. 5. Mr. Bhansali has filed an affidavit of a Head Clerk. Northern Railway Jodhpur, dated 2.9.76 and wanted to rely on it to amplify the reply which had already been filed. I am not inclined to allow this to be done at this stage. It may however be placed on record. *******