JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, C.J. - It appears that by a notification of 13th March, 1.980 the State Government reduced the age of retirement of the employees of the Zila Parishad from 60 to 58 years. This Notification has been challenged by the petitioners because they were subjected to compulsory retirement as they had crossed the age of superannuation, namely, 58 years. 2. The question is whether the age of retirement could be changed by subordinate legislation. The position in this behalf stands settled by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Autar Pandey v. State of U.P., (1962) ALJ 31. It has been held there that the age of superannuation could be changed by amendment the relevant rules and it was not by way of punishment as it did not amount to dismissal or removal, so it would not be hit by Article 311 of the Constitution. the Rule making authority could validly effect change in the age of superannuation. 3. In the next place it was argued that the impugned notification is violative of the provisions of Section 237(3) of the U.P. Kshettra Samities and Zila Parishad Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 237 of the Act reads: "237(3). All rules made under this act shall as soon as may be after they are made be laid before each House of the State legislature while it is in session for a total period of thirty days extending in its one session or more than on successive sessions, and shall unless some later date is appointed take effect from the date of their publication in the Gazette, subject to such modifications or annulments as the two houses of the State Legislature may during the said period agree to make so, however that any such modification of annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder." It was urged that at no point of time the notification making the amendment in the age of superannuation was laid before the Houses of the State Legislature. This assertion has. however, been denied in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit filed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4088 of 1980 wherein it has been stated that the amendment was laid before both the House of the State Legislature on 16-7-1900 in the fir.-t and the earliest session of the Legislative Assembly after the new elections. This assertion has. however, been denied in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit filed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4088 of 1980 wherein it has been stated that the amendment was laid before both the House of the State Legislature on 16-7-1900 in the fir.-t and the earliest session of the Legislative Assembly after the new elections. To view of this statement in the counter-affidavit the point does not arise. 4. Lastly it was urged that the State Government had not clearly made up its mind to retain persons who had already crosse the age of 58 years before the notification dated 13th March, 1980. This was evident from the circular letter dated 8th May, 1980 issued by the State Government to the various District Magistrates and Chairman of the Zha Parishads. In Paragraph 3 of this circular it has been stated that the case of state employees who had crossed the age of 58 years prior to the coming into force of the amendment was being considered separately. This means nothing This clearly indicates that their cases were being considered separately and that same order were proposed to be a passed later. This, however, does not show that the State Government had decided that the change in the age of superannuation would not apply to those employees who had already crossed the age of 58 years. 5. No other point was pressed. The writ petition has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed. We make no order as to costs.