Short Note : 1. The petitioner was retired under rule 48 of the Central Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The petitioner challenged this retirement; firstly on the ground that the order of retirement does not recite that the petitioner was retired in the public interest, and therefore, the order is invalid. The second ground of attack was that as rule 49 is amended, rule 48 is also amended by implication. Held: The relevant rule applicable is rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. This rule provides that at any time after a Government servant has completed thirty years qualifying service, he may be required by the appointing authority to retire in the public interest. The rule does not say that it should be mentioned in the order itself that the employee concerned is being required to retire in the public interest. It is sufficient if the decision to retire the Government servant is taken by the appointing authority in the public interest. From the facts stated in the return it is clear that a High Powered Committee has been constituted for examining the cases of employees who have completed or who are about to complete thirty years of service. This Committee consists of General Manager, Telecom Factories, Calcutta, and Deputy General Manager, Telecom Factories, Calcutta, The petitioner's case was sent to this Committee: The Committee recommended the retirement of the petitioner under rule 48 in the public interest. It was on the recommendation of the Committee that the impugned order was passed by the appointing authority. In our opinion, the omission to mention in the order that the petitioner was being retired in the public interest, does not invalidate the order. 2. The second argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that rule 48 must be taken to have been amended after rule 49 was amended which increased the maximum amount of pension from 30/60 to 33/68th. It is conceded by the learned counsel that rule 48 has not been in terms amended, It is only by implication that he submits that the rule should be taken to be amended. In our opinion, there is no merit whatsoever in this argument. It is conceded by the learned counsel that rule 48 has not been in terms amended, It is only by implication that he submits that the rule should be taken to be amended. In our opinion, there is no merit whatsoever in this argument. Simply because the maximum pension has been increased by amending rule 49, it cannot be said that rule 48 should be taken to have been amended so as to make it necessary before a person can be retired that he should have completed 33 years of service. The petitioner is not going to lose his pension. He has completed thirty years of service and he will get proportionate pension under rule 49. The object of rule 49 is to lay down the amount of pension which a Government servant is entitled to get at the time of his retirement. The modification of this rule cannot be taken to have by implication modified rule 48. Petition dismissed.