Short Note : 1. The legal position is that the Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu, Sanshodhan Adhyadesh, 1972 came into force on 21-1-1972. The amendment only says that the Government servant may be given extension in service in public interest beyond the age of 55 years. It does not say that the age of retirement will be 58 years. Therefore, the age of retirement even after coming into force of this Ordinance is 55 years. After this Ordinance, the Act, namely, the Madhya Pradesh Shasakiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 1972 came into force on 21-4-1972. In this, the Act itself says, "Subject to the provisions 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." So this Act clearly extends the date of retirement from 55 to 58 years. If this Act is applicable to the present petitioner, then alone, he cannot be retired before attaining the age of 58 years. But as he attains the age of retirement on 10-2-1972 and this Act came into force on 21-4-1972, this Act is not clearly applicable to the present petitioner. As there is no legal right created in his favour under the Ordinance Or Act, this Court thinks that the order of retirement is a valid order, no interference can be made in that order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The second grievance was regarding the salary which was not paid to him by the Department. This is a money claim and the petitioner can very well file a suit to recover that amount if so advised. No writ can be in such matter. 3. The third grievance was regarding him leave preparatory to retirement. The petitioner's contention is that his application was not considered and leave being a right, the claim should have been considered by the Government. This Court feels that this submission is misconceived; firstly, because leave cannot be claimed as of right. Secondly, as soon as the Government servant is retired, his leave account lapses unless he has applied for leave sufficient time before his date of retirement and that it has been refused or that he has ascertained in writing from the sanctioning authority that such leave. if applied for, would not be granted. Secondly, as soon as the Government servant is retired, his leave account lapses unless he has applied for leave sufficient time before his date of retirement and that it has been refused or that he has ascertained in writing from the sanctioning authority that such leave. if applied for, would not be granted. Thirdly, the petitioner has not shown in the petition by filing any document that his leave was refused by the Government or if applied, it would not have been granted. The reply filed by the State is that he has not observed the formalities for getting the leave sanctioned, which is his responsibility and, therefore, he cannot make any grievance regarding the leave. This Court thinks, this Objection is well supported. Therefore, also the claim regarding leave cannot be entertained.