JUDGMENT -A very small point arises for determination in this petition. In order to appreciate the point and the rival contentions, a few facts may be stated: 2. We are concerned in this petition with the order of compulsory retirement passed by the State Government on 12th July 1972 holding that it was in the public interest to retire the petitioner; a copy of this order is annexed as Exhibit 'A' to the petition. On the relevant date the petitioner was officiating in the Class II Gazetted post of Sales Tax Officer, Grade Ill, but his substantive permanent post was that of Sales Tax Inspector which is a Class III post. The petitioner originally joined the Sales Tax Department of the then State of Bombay in December 1948. After completing the period of probation he was appointed as Sales Tax Inspector initially in an officiating capacity and was subsequently confirmed in that post with effect from 1st April 1952; that was by an order dated 20th July 19S3. He was subsequently allowed to cross the efficiency bar. On the Reorganization of States he was allocated to the State of Bombay initially and thereafter to the State of Maharashtra. In 1957 the petitioner passed the departmental examination and subsequently in 1962 he was promoted to the post of Sales Tax Officer, Grade III in Class II Service and appointed to that post with effect from 1st September 1962 in an officiating capacity. For nearly 10 years' he remained in that post in an officiating capacity without being confirmed therein. However, he had acquired and maintained his lien on his Class III post of Sales Tax Inspector by reason of his earlier confirmation and substantive appointment to such post. 3. On 8th May 1972 the petitioner was addressed a letter by the Additional Commissioner of Sales-tax giving him intimation of the Government decision to retire him on his attaining the age of 50 years. The petitioner was asked by the said letter whether he was willing to retire voluntarily and would like to give notice to Government. 3. On 8th May 1972 the petitioner was addressed a letter by the Additional Commissioner of Sales-tax giving him intimation of the Government decision to retire him on his attaining the age of 50 years. The petitioner was asked by the said letter whether he was willing to retire voluntarily and would like to give notice to Government. In reply the petitioner by his letter dated 7th June 1972 represented that he should be allowed to continue in service beyond the age of 50 years; it was, inter alia pointed out that if he was made to retire on that date, he would earn only a meager pension as he had not completed the qualifying service of 30 years. The needs of the petitioner and his family were indicated and it was requested that his representation may be considered sympathetically as the petitioner considered community-wise belonged to 'Other Backward Classes'. By a cryptic letter in reply the petitioner was informed that his representation has been rejected. The impugned notice dated 12th July 1972 was served on the petitioner along with the letter dated 14th August 1972 of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales-tax. The impugned notice provided that the petitioner would stand retired from Government service from the date of expiry of three months from the date of service of the notice on him, which was obviously after 14th August 1972. It appears that thereafter the petitioner addressed a further representation dated 12th /14th September 1972 to the Hon'ble Minister of Finance in which he repeated his earlier pleas and in the alternative contended that since he bad not been confirmed as Sales Tax Officer, he should be allowed to continue on his lower post (of Sales Tax Inspector) where he was confirmed. It was contended in the said representation that it was his privilege to continue on that (lower) post and cadre. By the said representation the petitioner asked either the cancellation of the notice of retirement or a favourable consideration of the request made in the last paragraph thereof which was for continuation in the lower post of Sales Tax Inspector. By a cryptic communication dated 30th October 1972 this representation and request were also rejected. 4. By the said representation the petitioner asked either the cancellation of the notice of retirement or a favourable consideration of the request made in the last paragraph thereof which was for continuation in the lower post of Sales Tax Inspector. By a cryptic communication dated 30th October 1972 this representation and request were also rejected. 4. In this petition the only substantive plea in my opinion is to be found in ground (g) of para 15 of the petition, and it is based upon the difference of ages at which this power may be exercised by the Government under Rule 161 (as it stood at the relevant time) for Class II and Class III posts. According to the petitioner, his case was governed by Rule 161 (C-l) (ii) (a). This submission was based on the fact that on the date on which the purported notice of retirement was served on him the petitioner was holding the confirmed substantive post of Sales Tax Inspector which was in Class III. According to the petitioner, therefore, he could be retired only after attaining the age of 55 years. In any case and in the alternative, it was submitted that after the petitioner had indicated in his second representation dated 12th/14th September 1972 that he wanted to revert to and continue in the lower post, the State lost its right of premature comp11lsory retirement at the age of 50 which it had if the petitioner could have been regarded as holding a post in Class II service. 5. A number of questions then would arise in the petition; (i) For considering the age of superannuation or for considering the age at which the State becomes entitled to consider the service record of an employee for permanantly retiring him whether the employee's officiating or substantive posting is to be considered. (ii) If an employee is officiating in a higher post for a number of years, then by necessity only his performance in the higher post can be considered; if so, whether the State can exercise the right to retire him absolutely or would it have the right to require him to revert back from the higher post, which would necessarily mean an offer to him to be reverted back to the lower post if the age of compulsory retirement for that lower post has not yet been reached. (iii) Assuming that the State can pass an order of retirement which can be valid for the higher post, can after such an order is issued but before it takes effect finally and irrevocably the employee have a right to seek reversion back to the lower post on which the State as· yet in his case does not possess the right of compulsory retirement, (iv) Did the petitioner seek to avail of such purported right of reverting back to the lower post by his representation dated 12th/14th September 1972 ? (v) Has the petitioner the right to seek such reversion absolutely or is it for the employer viz. the State to allow him to revert back to the lower post? 6. As stated earlier, all these questions would require consideration and arise for determination in this petition. I sought assistance from the learr1'ed, advocate for the Government as to whether the answers to these questions (and particularly questions 3 and 5) were specifically provided for in the Bombay Civil Services Rules. Neither he nor the advocate for the petitioner was able to point out any specific rule dealing with such contingencies or the right of an employee to claim reversion to a lower post. Similarly neither advocate has been able to draw my attention to any decided cases of our High Court or of the Supreme Court on such right or on such claim. It is in these circumstances that the matter has to be decided as res integra and on first principles. 7. Mr. Naik: on behalf of the respondent State contended that if it was to be held that the petitioner was entitled to seek reversion back to his substantive post, that would require the Government to absorb him in the lower post which may mean the throwing out of service of one of the Sales-tax Inspectors, which would not be fair on the Sales-tax Inspector concerned. Further, according to him, if there was any such right of reversion, the petitioner was bound to have exercised it prior to his case being considered by the Special Review Committee and the petitioner could not have availed of it after the decision of the Government was conveyed to him. In my opinion, the first argument is merely an argument of difficulty or complication. In my opinion, the first argument is merely an argument of difficulty or complication. But in this case the complication is principally due to the fact that the Government have continued the petitioner in an officiating post without confirming him for a period of 10 years. This period by no stretch of imagination can be considered as reasonable. If any difficulty is expected by reason of the petitioner being required to be reverted back, then in my opinion the Government will have to blame itself only for its failure to confirm the petitioner in the higher post for this unduly long time The second difficulty suggested by Mr. Naik certainly requires consideration. The question which will be required to be posed and answered is whether at any stage the petitioner has lost the right to go back to his substantive appointment or posting; is there a time limit within which or before which such right is to be exercised? It may be mentioned that to a certain extent difficult situation is created by the Rules which has fixed different ages of superannuation and under Rule 161 (c-l) different ages at which persons in different classes of service can be prematurely retired. There would have been no difficulty if both for Class 11 and Class III posts the same age of compulsory premature retirement had been prescribed. The difficulty is principally because such age for Class II posts is 50 whereas that for Class III posts is 55 years. 8. My attention was also drawn to Note 4 to Rule 161; the said Note reads as follows: "Note (4)-C1auses (a) and (b) of this rule apply to all Government servants to whom the Bombay Civil Services Rules as a whole apply whether they be holding temporary or permanent posts substantively or in an officiating capacity. When a Government servant bolding a permanent post substantively is officiating in another post, this rule should be applied according to the character of the post in which he is officiating and not according to the character of the permanent post held substantively by him. Thus the date of compulsory retirement of the substantive holder of a post in Class IV service, who is officiating in a post not included in that service is the date on which he attains the age of 58 years. Thus the date of compulsory retirement of the substantive holder of a post in Class IV service, who is officiating in a post not included in that service is the date on which he attains the age of 58 years. If such a person would like to be governed by clause (b) of this rule, he must revert to a post ill Class IV Service before he attains the age of 58 years." As far as these Notes are concerned, it would appear that they are not part arid parcel of the rules but may be considered usefully for the purpose of interpreting them if the interpretation suggested in the Note is consistent with any of the rules. As far as Note (4) is concerned, it has to be borne' in mind that it is restricted to clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 161 and does not say in so many words that it applies to clause (c) or (c-l) of the said rule. Even if it were to be held that the principle incorporated in this Note should be applied to cases of compulsory premature retirement, it would seem that under the procedure envisaged by the Note a Government servant could by analogy seek reversion to his substantive post before the date on which his compulsory premature retirement becomes effective. 9. In my opinion it may not be necessary in this petition strictly speaking to determine the case of a Government servant who does not seek reversion to the lower post, in as much as by his letter dated 12th {14th September 1972 the petitioner had in the penultimate and ultimate paras of his representation clearly indicated his desire to be sent back to the lower post where he had been confirmed. There is no prescribed form in which a notice for seeking reversion has to be given, and the only question which will be required to be considered is whether the right to be reverted back is a right to be exercised in the sole discretion of the Government servant or whether such intimation will be effective only if it is accepted and consented to by the Government concerned. 10. 10. The definition of 'lien' is to be found in Rule 9 (31) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules and it has been defined as the title of a Government servant to hold substantively either immediately or on the termination of a period or periods of absence a permanent post, including a tenure post, to which he has been appointed substantively. As far as the petitioner is concerned, his lien is on the post of Sales-tax Inspector, which is a post in Class III service of the State. As far as that post is concerned, the condition for compulsory premature retirement would be found in Rule 161 (c-l) (ii) (a), which provides that he could be so retired in the public interest after he has attained the age of 55 years. Now, although defined, the Rules have not further provided for the effect and the impact of such lien and the rights flowing there from. However, the importance of this lien has been noted in several judicial decisions. The substantive post to which a Government servant is confirmed and on which he holds a lien invests him with a bundle of rights and in my view one of the rights included in this bundle is the right to go back to this post if the higher post in which he officiates is no longer available to him unless he has expressly agreed to give up such claim of reversion at the time when he is offered promotion in a higher post although it may be only officiating promotion. If he has obtained such promotion or transfer to a particular area or similar other beneficial condition of service expressly agreeing to waive the right to the substantive post or accepted curtailment of such right in any particular manner, then we l1lay have a special case which is not the case before us. There is nothing on record to show that when the petitioner got his promotion in 1962 or at any time thereafter, he agreed to a curtailment of his rights arising from his lien on the post of Sales-tax Inspector in any manner. His right to that substantive post thus must continue thenceforth in all its amplitude till it is shown that he has lost such right or become disentitled to such right in any manner or by reason of any other factor. His right to that substantive post thus must continue thenceforth in all its amplitude till it is shown that he has lost such right or become disentitled to such right in any manner or by reason of any other factor. Considering the nature of his right of lien and the protection that such lien must afford to the petitioner, I am of opinion that this right to get reverted back to the substantive post must and be available to the petitioner till such time as he remains in Government service. If, then, tae ages of ordinary superannuation between the officiating post and the substantive post are different and if such age is lower for the officiating post, then the Government employee can seek to avail of the reversion till such time he reaches that age. If he crosses over that age and becomes subject to the disability by way of retirement, then after he has ceased to be a Government servant he cannot effectively claim to exercise his right to go back to the lower post and continue to remain in Government service till he reaches the higher age of superannuation. The same consequence will follow in case of a compulsory retirement. It would certainly be open to the Government to consider the fitness of the employee in the officiating higher post and to arrive at a conclusion bona fide and after assessment of performance of such Government servant that it is necessary in the public interest to compulsorily retire him. Where, however, the fitness or otherwise of a Government servant has been considered and scrutinised with reference to the higher post and at a point of time where it can be considered only with reference to such higher post, it is the option of the Government servant to seek reversion if he is not yet confirmed in the higher post and his substantive lien is on a lower post which attracts a different age for compulsory retirement. 11. As stated earlier, I have already expressed my opinion that my attention has not been drawn to any specific form or provision in the Rules dealing with the right of a Government employee to seek reversion back to his substantive post. 11. As stated earlier, I have already expressed my opinion that my attention has not been drawn to any specific form or provision in the Rules dealing with the right of a Government employee to seek reversion back to his substantive post. If no particular for in is prescribed or no condition laid down, such a demand can be made by the employee in any appropriate manner and the question then is whether by his representation or letter dated 12th/14th September 1972 the petitioner clearly indicated his desire to be reverted back to the lower post? In my opinion, a fair reading of such letter must clearly indicate such desire It is true that in the opening para of his representation to the Minister of Finance the petitioner contended that the decision to retire him from the post of Sales-tax Officer be reviewed and that he should be allowed to continue on various considerations indicated in the opening para. The penultimate and the ultimate paras, however, of the said representation or letter make it clear that if the authority to whom the representation was addressed was not inclined to consider this request sympathetically, then the petitioner desired to revert back to his substantive post and to continue there till the age of 55 years at which age alone the Government could consider the question of prematurely· retiring the petitioner in the lower post of Sales-tax Inspector which was a Class III post. As stated earlier, by a cryptic reply the representation was rejected. In my view, the first part of the representation was within the discretion of the Government; it could accept or reject the same. There is no reason suggested nor any argument advanced· on the question and it has not been urged that the Government was bound to accept the first part of the petitioner's representation. Similarly no ground has been advanced really to suggest that the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner from the officiating post could not be taken by the Government. The only question which then arises is: if such a decision is taken but before it becomes effective in the sense that the petitioner in fact stands retired, can the petitioner seek, as of right reversion to the lower post which would give a certain tenure of five years more subject to the other exigencies of Government service? The only question which then arises is: if such a decision is taken but before it becomes effective in the sense that the petitioner in fact stands retired, can the petitioner seek, as of right reversion to the lower post which would give a certain tenure of five years more subject to the other exigencies of Government service? In my opinion there is no provision in the Rules nor is any logical principle offered by way of argument which would militate against conferring on the petitioner any such right. .If a Government employee can be made to officiate in a higher post for 10 years, then the Government cannot be heard to say that if he seeks reversion to the lower post there would be inconvenience or there would be difficulty or someone else might be required to be thrown out from the lower post. That, as stated earlier, is a difficulty of the Government's own making. If the Government fails to give to the petitioner a substantive right to the higher post, they cannot seek to detract from his substantive right to the lower post including the right to be reverted back to the same which will bring as a consequence the right to continue there free from the danger of compulsory retirement till the attainment of the age of 55. Logically I do not see any reason to envisage any genuine difficulty particularly in a department such as the Sales-tax Department. If a person has been officiating in a Class II pest, his performance in that post viz. Class II post will be considered and a bona fide decision will be arrived at whether it is desirable to allow him to continue in that post or Dot If the decision is adverse to the Government servant, an intimation to that effect will be given to him. It is at that stage that the Government servant ought really to be called upon to exercise his right of reversion. If it is so done and some time limit fixed, then perhaps it can be said that if he does not exercise such right within the time limit specified, which must be a reasonable time limit, he should not be allowed to avail of such right of reversion right upto the date on which his retirement becomes effective. If it is so done and some time limit fixed, then perhaps it can be said that if he does not exercise such right within the time limit specified, which must be a reasonable time limit, he should not be allowed to avail of such right of reversion right upto the date on which his retirement becomes effective. But unless a time limit is prescribed in the Rules or imposed by necessary implication in the manner suggested, such restriction of his right to claim reversion ought not to be lightly inferred. It is in my opinion a necessary concomitant of his lien and it must be given its full effect to. If it is given full effect to, then the necessary consequence of such conclusion or opinion must be that the State was in error in not acting on the request made by the petitioner for reversion in his representation dated 12th/14th September 1972 and proceeding upon the footing that he had no right to go back to the lower post. In my view the petitioner had a right, he had exercised that right and it is legally impermissible for the State to shut its eyes to the demand and treat the petitioner only as if he was posted to the higher post of Sales-tax Officer, which treatment was possible only if he had been confirmed in that post and not otherwise. 12. It may be mentioned that in 1972 the petitioner was governed by the amendment of Rule 161 as notified in September 1970. There has been a later amendment of this rule in 1976 which has made considerable change in the age. By this amendment the higher age of 55 provided for a Government servant bolding a post in Class III Service bas been abrogated and a special higher age of compulsory retirement prescribed only for Government servants bolding posts in Class IV Service. By this amendment the higher age of 55 provided for a Government servant bolding a post in Class III Service bas been abrogated and a special higher age of compulsory retirement prescribed only for Government servants bolding posts in Class IV Service. I am not really concerned with the effect of this amendment, as on the view that I have taken it must be held that with effect from the date on which the notice dated 12th July 1972 became operative, the petitioner was entitled to continue in his lower substantive post of Sales-tax Inspector, on which post he had a lien, and had the right of reversion as indicated by me above and which right he had sought to exercise by his letter dated 12th/14th September 1972 •. It appears from the leave order dated 2nd November 1972, a copy whereof is part of the compilation 'A' the petitioner ha'5 enjoyed leave as Sales-tax Officer upto 16th June 1974. This would mean that his right to continue in the lower post would become operative from the next day i.e., 17th June 1974. As the petitioner was born in 1922, he would have a right to continue in Government service under the Rules as they stand upto 1980 considering only for this purpose the normal age of retirement as 58. This would mean that today the petitioner would be entitled to a direction in the view that I have taken that he must be continued and retained in Government service but be posted in Class III post of Sales· tax Inspector but subject to necessary adjustments being made for the period during which he officiated in the higher post. In this view of the matter, the petitioner will also be entitled to receive his emoluments from the 1st respondent which he would have received in this post for the period from 17th June 1974. As far as the order for reinstatement is concerned, I direct reinstatement to be operative from 1st October 1977 till such time as would be taken to calculate and compute his pay in the Class III post to which the petitioner must be fitted. This would be for the purpose of payment of monthly emoluments principally as hereinafter provided. I direct as and by way of a stop-gap arrangement that the petitioner be. This would be for the purpose of payment of monthly emoluments principally as hereinafter provided. I direct as and by way of a stop-gap arrangement that the petitioner be. paid such emoluments as he was drawing as Sales-tax Inspector on the date on which he wa'5 given officiating promotion i.e. 1962. All computations of the proper pay to which the petitioner is entitled as also of the amounts which are payable to the petitioner for the period from 17th June 1974 till 30th September 1977 to be completed by 15th January 1978 at the latest and the amounts to be paid to the petitioner by 31st January 1978. The balance of emoluments for the period October 1977 to January 1978 to be paid on or before 15th February 1978. Till such time as the computation is made the petitioner to be paid his monthly salary under this order as he drew at the time of his officiating promotion in 1962. The petitioner to report for work to the Sales-tax Department forthwith with effect from 1st October 1977. 13. The respondents must also pay to the petitioner the costs of the petition. Petition allowed.