Short Note : 1. This second appeal is at the instance of the plaint ff, an employee of the Municipal Corporation Gwalior, whose suit challenging the order of his compulsory retirement has been thrown out at the preliminary stage itself without any trial by holding that the suit was not tenable because thereby the plaintiff wanted to enforce a contract of personal service and a suit for the said purpose was prohibited by the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. It was also stated out that since the services of the plaintiff were terminated after he had attained the age of 55 years, he had no right to the post and on that ground also the order retiring him compulsorily was not open to challenge before the Civil Court. 2. The lower appellate Court also affirmed the order made by the trial Court by holding that since the allegations made in the plaint did not make out a case of malafide in making the order retiring the plaintiff on attaining the age of 55 years. was quite proper and could not be said to be illegal or void. 3. Held : From the perusal of the averments made by the Municipal Corporation and its officers, i.e. defendants 1, 2 and:, in their written statements it is apparent from the pleadings in para 12 of the same that the order directing compulsory retirement was made by the defendants under rule 4 of the bye-laws called 'the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, Payment of pension, gratuity and compassionate allowance Bye-laws, 1971' published at page 812 of the M.P. Rajpatra dated 26-11-1971 (Part II. From the perusal of the language used in sub-rule (2) it is apparent that the Corporation could required its employee to retire at any time after he has completed. 30 years of qualifying service or has attained the age of superannuate on. In the present case it was not disputed that the plaintiff had not completed 30 years of qualifying service. It was also not disputed that on the date the notice directing his compulsory retirement was issued, by the age of superannuation of the employees, like the plaintiff, was 58 years. The undisputed date of birth of the plaintiff being 28th May 1919. he had not attained the age of 58 years in the year 1978 when the notice directing compulsory retirement was issued. The undisputed date of birth of the plaintiff being 28th May 1919. he had not attained the age of 58 years in the year 1978 when the notice directing compulsory retirement was issued. Thus, neither of the two pre-requisite conditions attracting the applicability of rule 4 (2) were available Hence it is apparent that the notice issued by the Corporation authorities was absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction even according to their own case as stated in the written statement. Once It was so and the plaintiff being the employee of the statutory body, like the Municipal Corporation, constituted and created by the Statute, viz, the Municipal Corporation Act, he had every right to maintain the suit for claiming the declaration of his status and right to continue in employment by showing that the order terminating his services, is illegal and without jurisdiction. 4. Shri M. A. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, however, pointed out that this mistake happened to be committed because the age of superannuation was raised to 58 years by a resolution of the Corporation but the bye-laws were not accordingly amended. As a matter of fact, there was no need to amend the bye-laws, because sub-rule (2) of R. 4 of the Bye-laws uses the words 'age of superannuation' and the term 'age of superannuation' as defined in rule 3, clause (b) means the age which may be fixed/ascertained by the Corporation from time to time by a resolution in that behalf. In any case, there be a mistake or no mistake. the notice which is claimed by the defendants themselves to have been issued under rule 4 of the aforesaid Bye laws is against the provisions of the same and beyond the powers of the authorities of the Corporation. 5. Lastly, it was contended that even if it is held that the suit was tenable; but, since during the pendency of the first appeal and the present appeal before this Court, the appellant-plaintiff has crossed the age of superannuation. i.e. 58 years, he could not get the relief of reinstatement which has been claimed in the plaint, and on this ground the suit has become in fructuous because no relief has been claimed towards damages on the ground of illegal termination of the plaintiff's services. i.e. 58 years, he could not get the relief of reinstatement which has been claimed in the plaint, and on this ground the suit has become in fructuous because no relief has been claimed towards damages on the ground of illegal termination of the plaintiff's services. On behalf of the appellant it was rightly pointed out that if due to subsequent events during the pendency of the litigation, the relief claimed becomes inappropriate and the plaintiff is always free to mould his relief so as to make it tenable and that he will make necessary amendment in the plaint for claiming damages. Appeal allowed. Case remanded.