JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, C.J. - Chandra Sekhar Bhanja, the original applicant in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution claimed to have been born on 8-10-1916 and to have been appointed as a second clerk in the Forest Head Office of the ex-State of Dhenkanal with effect from 1-11-1934. He held a permanent appointment and under Article 459 of the Central Civil Service Regulations which were applicable to the said State, the retrial age was 60 years. Petitioner was thus entitled to serve upto 1976. With effect from 29-5-1947, the Orissa Service Code was enforced and with effect from 1st of January, 1948 the ex-State, of Dhenkanal merged with the province of Orissa. Petitioner came to serve under the absorbent province and was given promotion as Accountant. On 5-11-1963, he was confirmed in the promotional post. On 17-8-1971, Petitioner was informed that he was to superannuate with effect from 8-10-1971 and on that day he was prematurely retired. When the legal position became settled in regard to superannuation of employees of the ex-State of Dhenkanal, Petitioner applied in O.J.C. No. 1903 of 1975 to this Court on 1-9-1975. The said application was entertained and the State Government filed a counter affidavit, but in view of the Forty-second Constitutional Amendment and availability of an alternate remedy under Rule 23 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, the writ petition was held to have abated. Petitioner immediately moved the Governor under Rule 23 of the aforesaid Rules and even sent a reminder, but when there was no response, he ultimately filed this writ application on 8-9-1977 asking for quashing of the order of superannuation and other consequential service benefits. On 29-9-1977 rule nisi was issued. On 17-8-1978 in presence of learned Government Advocate for the State, a Bench of this Court passed the following order: In course of the hearing of this case our attention has been drawn to the fact that the Petitioner has preferred an appeal against the impugned order before the Government in March, 1977. Mr. Nanda, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, states that the Petitioner has sent a reminder on 21-7-1977 (Annexure-6) for the disposal of the said appeal. It is not known why this appeal has been kept pending all this time though the law on this subject is now well settled by a series of decisions. Mr. Nanda, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, states that the Petitioner has sent a reminder on 21-7-1977 (Annexure-6) for the disposal of the said appeal. It is not known why this appeal has been kept pending all this time though the law on this subject is now well settled by a series of decisions. As the appeal is pending we do not deem it proper to dispose of this writ petition at present. But considering the fact that the appeal is pending since a long time we direct that the same be disposed of by opposite party No. 1 within one month from the receipt of a copy of this order, with intimation to the Petitioner. If the appeal is not disposed of by the time above mentioned, this writ petition shall be taken up for hearing and, disposal soon thereafter. Send a copy of this order to opposite party No. 1 by registered post at the cost of the Petitioner. Requisites for issue of the order shall be filed by tomorrow. This order is passed in the presence of the learned Government Advocate who stated that he will also communicate this order to opposite party No. 1. Though the order was duly communicated as transpires from the records, there has been no disposal of the appeal as stated by counsel for the Petitioner. 2. No return has been made to the rule nisi by the opposite parties. We are, therefore, left with the uncontroverted averments in the writ application for our consideration. 3. During the pendency of the writ' application the original Petitioner died on 22-9-1978 and his widow and five daughters as legal representatives applied for being impleaded. On 22-12-1978 at the request of both the sides, the application for substitution was directed to be called on the date of hearing. That is how the said substitution petition has remained undisposed of till now. Counsel for both sides were prepared to address supported by precedents regarding the disposal of the petition for substitution. On 22-12-1978 at the request of both the sides, the application for substitution was directed to be called on the date of hearing. That is how the said substitution petition has remained undisposed of till now. Counsel for both sides were prepared to address supported by precedents regarding the disposal of the petition for substitution. We did not permit long arguments to be advanced as III course of hearing we had indicated to counsel for the parties that we did not propose to allow any further relief that had been conceded in the Finance Department Resolution dated 14th of December, 1977, and since the resolution contemplated that legal representatives of deceased Government servants could make claim for financial benefits, for considering the limited relief, substitution could not be opposed. 4. By a series of authorities of this Court it has already been decided that in the ex-State of Dhenkanal, the age of superannuation of the employees was 60 years. The Orissa Service Code which was adopted in ex-State in May, 1947, included a provision to the effect that the advantages under the existing law were not intended to be abrogated or taken away. Therefore, notwithstanding the introduction of the Orissa Service Code, persons in employment under the ex-State prior to May, 1947, were entitled to continue in service till they attained the sixtieth year of age. Petitioner's retirement on completing 55 year of age was thus contrary to law and the original Petitioner was entitled to make grievance of such superannuation. His case is covered by the Finance Department Resolution of December, 1977. The two benefits which have been conceded to persons of this type are as indicated in paragraph 6 which we may extract: An ex-State employee, who is entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years but has already been retired prior to that and has completed the age of 60 years, after superannuation, for which he will not be in a position to rejoin service, shall be given the following benefits: (a) Pension and gratuity of the employees shall be calculated and paid on the basis of pay admissible to him had he retired on completion of 60 years of age. (b) A lum sum amount equal to twelve months presumptive pay he would have last drawn had he not retired, subject to a maximum of Rs. (b) A lum sum amount equal to twelve months presumptive pay he would have last drawn had he not retired, subject to a maximum of Rs. 5,000/- shall be paid in lieu of his salary he would have drawn had he continued upto 60 years of age, in addition to pension and for gratuity already drawn by him.... Clause (b) aforesaid further stated: ...If such an employee pas died in the mean while, the amount shall be payable to his legal heir on production of non-employment certificate of the employee by the claimant. In view of the provision in Clause (b) that legal representatives are entitled to lay claim to the benefits conferred by the Resolution we direct substitution as applied for. The widow and the five daughters shall, therefore, be brought on record. We further direct that the benefits payable to the original Petitioner be worked out in terms of paragraph 6 of the resolution and the claimants be informed to produce the requisite non-employment certificate as contemplated in paragraph 6 of the resolution. This be done within two months from the date of service of the writ. The legal representatives shall be given one month's time in the minimum for production of the requisite certificate. Within two months of production of the requisite certificate the amount shall be disbursed to them or to such of them as may be authorised appropriately by them. The writ application is accordingly disposed of. There would be no order for costs. R.C. Patnaik, J. 5. I agree.