JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - Seeking shelter under protective canopy of equality before law and in employment guaranteed under Constitution, which has touched life of every citizen, has become a magic mirror reflecting every development in the country, uprooting every rule and law which is discriminatory or arbitrary, the petitioner, an Administrative Officer Class I of Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as Corporation) has challenged validity of R. 19(2) of Staff Regulations 1977 providing for retirement of Class I and II employee at the age of 58 years being violative of Articles 14 and 16 as there is no rationale for retaining similar employees who had come on transfer from erstwhile Insurers till the age of 60 years. 2. Factual divergence is none. Suffice it to mention that petitioner was initially appointed in March, 1957 in Class III by Corporation. Since 1963 he is in Class I. In February, 1984 he was intimated by a notice that he shall retire on attaining the age of 58 in June, 1984. Basis for this was R. 19 of Staff Regulations, 1977, framed by the Corporation in exercise of power vested in it under Cls. (b) and (bb) of sub-sec. (2) of S. 49. Sub-rr. (l)and (2) of it so far they are relevant are extracted below. "(1) An employee belonging to Class II or Class IV and a transferred employee belonging to Class I or Class II shall retire on completion of age 60, but the competent authority may, if it is of the opinion that it is in the interest of the corporation to do so, direct such employee to retire on completion of 55 years of age or at any time thereafter, on giving him three month's notice or salary in lieu thereof. (Notified in Gazette of India; Part III S. 4 dated 21-1-1977). (2) An employee belonging to Class I or Class II appointed to the service of the Corporation on or after 1st Sept. 1956 shall retire on completion of 58 years of age, but the competent authority may if it is of the opinion that it is in the interest of the Corporation to do so, direct such employee to retire on completion of 50 years of age or at any time thereafter on giving him three month's notice or salary in lieu thereof (Notified in Gazette of India, Part III S. 4dt. 21-1-1977)." Before adverting to validity of sub-rule (2) relating to age of retirement of Class I and II, officers promoted from those appointed directly in Class III with those who had come on transfer from erstwhile insurers if Class III and promoted to Class I and II, its historical background has to be narrated to comprehend the import of submissions advanced on behalf of petitioner. 3. Business of Life Insurance was nationalised in 1956 by Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as Act.) S. 3 of the Act empowered Central Government to establish a Corporation called Life Insurance Corporation. The Act came into force on 18th June, 1956 and the Corporation was established on 1st Sept. 1956. Before the Corporation came into existence the Insurance business was done by private companies. Transfer of service of employees of insurers to the Corporation was regulated by S. 11 of the Act. It provides that every whole time employee of an insurer whose controlled business has been transferred to and vested in the Corporation and who was employed by the insurer wholly or mainly in connection with his controlled business immediately before the appointed day shall on and from the appointed day, that is, 1st Sept. 1956 became an employee of the Corporation and shall hold therein by the same tenure at the same remuneration and upon the same terms and conditions and with the same rights and privileges as to pension and gratuity and other matters as he would have held the same on the appointed day if this Act had not been passed and shall continue to do unless and until his employment in the Corporation is terminated or until his remuneration, terms and conditions are duly altered by the Corporation. S. 492(b) and (bb) empowered Corporation with previous approval of the Central Government to make regulations relating to terms and conditions of service of employees of the Corporation including those who become its employees under S. 11 of the Act. First such regulations was framed by the Corporation which was known as Staff Regulations of 1956 and came into force in January, 1957. Regn. 21 of it relating to Superannuation and retirement reads as under:- "An employee shall retire at fifty five years of age provided that the appointing authority may at its discretion extend the service every year up to 60 years of age. Regn. 21 of it relating to Superannuation and retirement reads as under:- "An employee shall retire at fifty five years of age provided that the appointing authority may at its discretion extend the service every year up to 60 years of age. Provided, however, that in respect of some of the employees of Insurers who are allowed to continue in service beyond age of 60 years because of the terms and conditions of employment having not been favourable in the past, the Executive Committee may at its discretion extend their service every year up to age 65." This provision, therefore, did not make any distinction between the transferred employees and those who had been recruited directly by the Corporation. It intended to achieve the objective of uniformity by providing same date of retirement for all its employees except those which were covered by the proviso. Obviously not' to affect or alter the conditions of service to prejudice of those employees who were earlier employed by Insurers. In 1957 sub-sec. (2) of S. 11 was substituted. It empowered the Government to alter conditions of service of erstwhile employees of Insurers for securing uniformity in Scales of remuneration and other conditions of service etc. On 1st June, 1957 Government of India issued an Order known as (Alteration of Remuneration and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees Order, 1957). Regn. 13 of this Order provided that the date of retirement of employees governed by the Regulation shall be 60 years but the Corporation may require any employee who had attained the age of 55 years to retire if his efficiency was found to be impaired. Cl. (2)of the Order provided that these regulations shall be applicable to the employees of the erstwhile Insurance Companies who had been absorbed in the service of Corporation and were in the supervisory, clerical and subordinate staff grades only. But by Cl. (16) of the Order parity in pay-scales etc. was enforced between transferred and direct appointees on or after 1st Sept., 1956. In consequence of it the petitioner, who had been appointed as an Assistant in Class III on 22nd Mar. 1967, in Pay Scale of 90T0-200/EB 15-300 was put in scale of 75-5-90-270. But by Cl. (16) of the Order parity in pay-scales etc. was enforced between transferred and direct appointees on or after 1st Sept., 1956. In consequence of it the petitioner, who had been appointed as an Assistant in Class III on 22nd Mar. 1967, in Pay Scale of 90T0-200/EB 15-300 was put in scale of 75-5-90-270. The impact of this order, therefore, so far the direct employees of the Corporation was that they were placed in a disadvantageous position than they were under the terms of their appointment order. On 4th Aug. 1959 an Administrative Circular was issued providing that in case of all persons (both in respect of clerical, Supervisory and subordinate cadre and officer including Field Officers), recruited on or after 1st Jan. 1959 the retirement age shall be 58 years but in case of employees appointed before 1st Dec. 1958 belonging, on the date of retirement to the clerical, Supervisory and Subordinate cadre, provision of Standing Order, 1957 shall continue to apply. From this circular it appears that the department always considered that Standing Order of 1957 which were applicable only to transferred employees were applicable to the persons appointed directly by the Corporation. In 1960 Staff Regulations were framed. Regn. 5 of this classified the employees of the Corporation into four classes designated them as Class I Officers, Class II Development Officers. Class III Supervisory and Clerical staff and Class IV subordinate staff. Cl. (19) dealt with superannuation and retirement. Sub-cls. 1 and 2 of this Clause so far they are relevant are extracted below : "(1) Transferred employee shall retire on completion of age 60; but the appointing authority may direct such employees to retire on completion of 55 years of age or any time thereafter, if his efficiency is found to have impaired. (2) An employee appointed to the service of the Corporation on or after 1st September, 1956, shall retire on completion of 58 years of age, but the appointing authority may direct such employee to retire on completion of 55 years of age or at any time thereafter, if his efficiency is found to have been impaired." This amendment for the first time obliterated the distinction between Class I and Class II and IV employees. It introduced the concept of transferred employees and the employees directly recruited in all classes and provided that a transferred employee belonging to whatever class shall retire at the age of 60 whereas the other recruited directly shall retire at the age of 58. This led to resentment in the department and the employees of Class III and IV who were appointed directly and were governed by the Industrial Disputes Act raised an industrial dispute and claimed parity in the matter of age of superannuation and in certain other matters with the transferred employees. The Officers of Class I who were not covered in the definition of workmen within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act made representations to the appropriate authorities through their association. Industrial Dispute raised by Class III and IV employees resulted in reconciliation u/s 2(p) and S. 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The agreement entered between the Corporation and Representatives of the employees with regard to the age of retirement was; `there will be no distinction between Class III and IV transferred employees and Class III and IV employees who entered the service of Corporation on or after 1st Sept. 1956 in regard to the retirement age which shall be 60'. It resulted into an amendment in Staff Regulations in 1966 and the agreement entered into industrial disputes proceedings were given shape of formal regulations. According to Regn. 19(1) the age of retirement of all Class III and IV employees whether transferred or directly recruited became 60 years. Therefore, the age of 58 years after 1960 continued only for Class I and II Officers appointed directly. Relevant Regn. 19(1) and (2) are extracted below : "(1) An employee belonging to Class III or Class IV and a transferred employee belonging to Class I or Class II shall retire on completion of age 60; but the appointing authority may direct such employee to retire on completion of 55 years of age or at any time thereafter, if his efficiency is found to have been impaired. (2) An employee (belonging to Class I or Class II) appointed to the service of Corporation on or after 1st Sept. (2) An employee (belonging to Class I or Class II) appointed to the service of Corporation on or after 1st Sept. 1956 shall retire on completion of 58 years of age, but the appointing authority may direct such employee to retire on completion of 55 years of age or at any time thereafter, if his efficiency is found to have been impaired." Consequently, the Officers kept on agitating and Regn. 19(2) was amended in 1969. The amended Regn. 19(2) reads as under:- "Any employee belonging to the Class I and II appointed to the service of the Corporation on completion of 58 years of age but the appointing authority may at its discretion extend his services for one year at a time up to 60 years of age. The appointing authority may, however, direct an employee to retire on completion of 55 years of age or at any time thereafter his efficiency is found to have been impaired." The result of this amendment was that the retirement age for Class I and II officers continued to be 58 years but on the discretion of the appointing authority it could be 60 years. It is averred that after 1969, that is, after the amendment of Regn. 19(2) no officer of Class I and II was retired at the age of 58 years, that is, not by regulation but by practice the retirement age of Class I and II Officers for all practical purposes became 60. No one was aggrieved In 1977, however, to the misfortune of Officers of Class I and II the Regulation was again amended by which the discretion given to the appointing authority to extend the retirement of Officers of Class I and II up to age of 60 was withdrawn. In effect the earlier position was restored and an Officer in Class I and II was to be retired at the age of 58. In para 24 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that when petitioner was appointed in Class III he was to retire at age of 55 and when he was promoted to Class I he was to retire at age of 58. And as subsequent amendments in Regulations were not retrospective he could not derive any advantage of it. A very amusing defence has been put up. It shall be adverted to later. And as subsequent amendments in Regulations were not retrospective he could not derive any advantage of it. A very amusing defence has been put up. It shall be adverted to later. On discrimination it is averred in para 28 that it having been held by Supreme Court that persons who were absorbed and those who were recruited constituted two different classes. The plea of discrimination was unfounded. Attempt has further been made to justify the providing of different age of retirement in paras 2, 4, 5 and 6 of Supplementary Counter-Affidavit filed by C.D. Passels. The paras are extracted below : (1) That the persons whose services stood transferred to and who became the Officers of the Corporation u/s 11(1) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956 were in most cases, the beneficiaries of a retirement age of 60 and even beyond while in service of the insurers whose controlled business was transferred to and vested in the Corporation under the said Act. (2) That in the light of the aforesaid facts the Corporation felt that any distinction between officers and staff, among the transferred employees, in the matter of age of retirement would be invidious and consequently, it was thought advisable to fix the age of retirement of the transferred employees irrespective of the class to which they belonged as 60 and hence the provisions of Regn. 19(1) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 1960, were stably amended. (3) That it may be stated here that after coming into existence of the Life Insurance Corporation of India it was necessary for it to have the expertise and experience of Officers in the employment of the erstwhile insurers whose controlled business stood transferred to and vested in the Corporation and fixing the retirement age at 55 or 58 would result in the loss of such expertise before the Corporation could build up adequate new personnel. (4) That the provision of a higher retirement of age for the transferred employees as contained in Regn. 19(1) of the (Staff) Regulations, 1960 was necessitated because of the aforesaid circumstances as could be seen from the fact that no other benefit has been conferred on the transferred employees." Extract from the office note placed before the Services and Budget Committee Meeting held on 20th Nov. 1959 has been filed as Annexure to this affidavit. 19(1) of the (Staff) Regulations, 1960 was necessitated because of the aforesaid circumstances as could be seen from the fact that no other benefit has been conferred on the transferred employees." Extract from the office note placed before the Services and Budget Committee Meeting held on 20th Nov. 1959 has been filed as Annexure to this affidavit. As reliance has been placed on it as well it is extracted below: As regards retirement, the Government has mentioned that the Department of Expenditure has objected to raising the date of superannuation to 58 years of age on the ground that other statutory corporations are also dandling the same benefit on the analogy of the life Insurance Corporation's proposal. Standardisation Order provides that an employee shall retire at 60 year of age, but the competent authority may require an employee to retire at any time after 55 years of age if his efficiency is found to have been impaired. In the amended Regulations approved by the Board, this provision of the Standardisation Order was incorporated as far as employees in Classes III and IV are concerned but in the case of transferred officers and Field Officers the retirement age was fixed at 55 extensible 1 to 58 with a further proviso that in special circumstances only the competent authority may extend the services beyond age 58 and up to 60 years of age. The Board has also decided that administratively we shall grant extension up to 60 liberally till the end of 1963. Most of the insurers permitted their officers to continue in service up to 60 years of age and even beyond, depending upon their efficiency. There is no reason why there should be distinction between officers and staff in this matter as both of them had similar privileges with regard to retirement in the past. There is thus a strong case for extending the provisions of the Standardisation Order regarding retirement to the transferred officers also. As regards new recruits, it was thought that there was no justification to bring down the retirement age from 60 to 55 all of a sudden nor,was it considered necessary to maintain any distinction between officers and staff. All the employees have often represented that the age of retirement should be raised to 60. A compromise was, therefore, struck by fixing the age at 58. All the employees have often represented that the age of retirement should be raised to 60. A compromise was, therefore, struck by fixing the age at 58. In the light of the above it is suggested that the provisions of the Standardisation Order may be extended to transferred officers and the retirement age may be retained at 58 for persons recruited on or after 1st Jan. 1950. It maybe added that this would mean a modification of the earlier decision of the Board in this matter." 4. Frequent amendments in staff regulations from time to time disclose that there has been no consistent policy in respect of retirement. Sri V. D. Singh, the learned counsel for petitioner urged that Staff Regn. 19(2) of 1977 was ultra vires as it discriminated between direct and transferred employees of Class I and II of transferred employees. According to him there was no basis for treating Class III and IV both direct and transferees as one class and retiring them at 60 whereas Class I and II of direct appointee at 58 and transferred at 60. He urged that once direct and transferred employees were put in one class then there was no reasonable basis to discriminate between them by describing one as transferred and other as direct. Reliance was placed on S. B. Patwardhan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 2051 : (1977 Lab IC 1367) wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble Court that direct recruits and promotees constituted one integrated cadre as they discharged identical functions, bore similar responsibilities and acquired similar experience, therefore, there seniority could not be left to depend upon mere accident of confirmation. The other aspect of this very attack was that the staff regulations discriminated between same Class of Officers, that is, transferred and direct. Learned counsel explained that he did not claim any discrimination with Class I employees appointed directly. But according to him there was no basis for discriminating between Class III transferred from erstwhile Insurers and promoted to Class I and between Class III employees appointed directly and promoted to Class I. Reliance was placed on Roshan Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1889 , wherein it was held that once direct recruits and promotees were put in one cadre then no discrimination could be made for future promotions. And any attempt to favour direct recruits in regard to promotion was violative of Articles 14 and 16, Similar view was taken in S. M. Pandit v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1972 SC 252 : (1972 Lab IC 155). Learned counsel further urged on strength of averment in para 19 of the petition which is not disputed, that certain officers of the Ministry of Defence, of the department known as Department of Controller of Insurance, were sent to Corporation on deputation and even their age of retirement has been fixed at 60. According to paras 54 and 55 of the counter-affidavit they are a class by themselves and their appointment is governed by the appointment letters issued to them. Further they have been treated as transferred employees as is clear from Annex. II filed with Supplementary Counter-affidavit. In the end the learned counsel urged that even if it was assumed that there was reasonable classification and the transferred and direct employees constituted two different groups then there was no nexus in fixing different pension for two so as to achieve efficiency and avail of services of experienced personnel. 5. In General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari, AIR 1962 SC 36 it was held : "Thus construed it would be clear that matters relating to employment cannot be confined only to the initial matters prior to the act of employment. The narrow construction would confine the application of Article 16(1) to the initial employment and nothing else; but that clearly is only one of the matters relating to employment. The other matters relating to employment would inevitably be the provision as to the salary and periodical gratuity, as to pension and as to the age of superannuation." A citizen, therefore, has right to claim equal treatment in respect of age of retirement. Any rule framed in this regard must withstand the test laid down by Supreme Court from time to time on Articles 14 and 16. Any rule framed in this regard must withstand the test laid down by Supreme Court from time to time on Articles 14 and 16. In D. S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130 : (1983 Lab IC 1), the Hon'ble Court after reviewing earlier authorities on Article 14 held : "Thus the fundamental principle is that Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation which classification must satisfy the twin tests of classification being founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the Statute in question." Does the Staff Regn. 19(2) satisfy this test? One could understand a rule or regulation providing the age of retirement at 60 for employees who had been absorbed and were in Class I, II or III and IV. But that as has been narrated earlier is not, Class III and IV both transferred and directly appointed and Class I and II transferred employee have been treated in one Class for retirement whereas class I or II appointed by Corporation after 1st September, 1956, that is, the appointed date have been treated as different class. Is this grouping justified? It maybe said that persons who had been absorbed as a consequence of taking over Insurance business and had under rules right to continue up to sixty were rightly put in one class. Therefore, these persons who were appointed by Corporation could not claim to be similarly situated. To that extent one may say that the grouping being reasonable the Courts may not travel in domain of legislative policy. And for that the allegations in the counter-affidavit and report of committee furnish material to establish that persons who had been absorbed and who were appointed by Corporation formed two distinct classes due to historical reasons etc. But what about Class III and IV class of employees appointed by Corporation? How were they grouped and put in the same class as Class III and IV of Insurers. On what rationale? Because they had raised industrial dispute. Therefore, the group or class who have been put in one, does not consist of similarly situated persons. But what about Class III and IV class of employees appointed by Corporation? How were they grouped and put in the same class as Class III and IV of Insurers. On what rationale? Because they had raised industrial dispute. Therefore, the group or class who have been put in one, does not consist of similarly situated persons. It is, however, not necessary to go that far as the mischief of rule 2 which excludes from its ambit very limited class of class I and II Officers is so shockingly violative of equality clause that it cannot be sustained. Apparently it looks very innocent and innocuous. But when analysed it reveals the inherent invalidity in it. 6. A reasonable classification which prevents a Court from dissecting it is one which includes all persons who are similarly situated with respect to the purpose of law or objective which the rule or section seeks to achieve. The apparent or inherent intention sought to be achieved by the Regn. 19 framed by Corporation was to continue up to age of sixty years the employees of Insurers as the age of Superannuation in some of the companies was sixty and to derive benefit from expertise and experience of employees who had worked with Insurers. May be laudable, reasonable and proper. But is it like that. Obviously not. An employee in Class III of Insurer could be continued up to sixty. But what happens when he climbs the ladder of promotion and reaches in Class I. Does he still carry the stamp of experience and expertise of having worked with Insurer? Once a transferred employee of Class III and a direct appointee in class are promoted to Class I obviously on merit, efficiency and seniority then how can the distinction of transferred and direct be maintained. So long employees are in Class III they can be said to constitute two different classes of transferred and direct appointee but once they are promoted they become similarly situated and the distinction stands obliterated. They on promotion form one integrated cadre of Class I Officers. To segregate them here for purposes of retirement is invidious when their pay, responsibility and benefits are same. They on promotion form one integrated cadre of Class I Officers. To segregate them here for purposes of retirement is invidious when their pay, responsibility and benefits are same. How can a Class III employee on transfer having been absorbed in Class III and promoted to Class I can be said to be more efficient for class I than that who was appointed directly in Class III and then promoted. Providing for retirement at age of 60 years for transferred employees and promoted to Class I has no nexus with the objective of efficiency. The experience of an employee in Class III with Insurers could furnish material for retaining him till 60 on experience or service conditions so long he was in Class III but once he was promoted to Class I then his experience as Class III employee with Insurers could not furnish basis for continuing him till 60 and retiring others at 58. The basis to say the least is artificial. The effort of Legislative body or rule making authority should be to eliminate and reduce inequality and not to create it. The vigorous implementation of concept of equality is of great importance in a welfare State. It is not a yardstick. It is a process. It is a delicate process of adjustment (Joint Anti Fascist Refugee Commr. v. M. L. Garth U.S. 123 (1952). If this classification between two classes of officers in class I entrusted with same work and responsibility is adhered to only because at some point of time they belonged to two different groups then it shall result in denying to one not on any rationale but on pretext. It disturbs the adjustment. 7. If two persons belong to one class then they should be treated similarly. No distinction should be made because one has the advantage of being bom in a better family. It is not the birth but work which is decisive. Therefore, even if two officers in Class III belonged to two different families of transferred and direct appointee they cease to be so once they were promoted to higher class as they were selected from same field of eligibility on same criteria for same work. It is not the birth but work which is decisive. Therefore, even if two officers in Class III belonged to two different families of transferred and direct appointee they cease to be so once they were promoted to higher class as they were selected from same field of eligibility on same criteria for same work. On promotion all officers whether they had come on transfer or were appointed directly formed one single class and it was not open to the Corporation to frame different regulations by dividing them in two classes on basis which ceased to exist after promotion. Even if on some imaginary basis they can be considered to constitute two different classes then there was no reasonable nexus which the regulation seeks to achieve. In S. B. Patwardhan's case (1977 Lab IC 1367) (supra) the dispute was between promotees and direct recruits. The rule provided that probationers recruited directly in any year shall in bunch be placed senior to promotees. The basis for this was that promotees so long they were not confirmed did not belong to Class II cadre. The Hon'ble Court did not agree and held : "If Officiating Deputy Engineers belong to Class II cadre as much as direct recruits do and if the quota system cannot operate upon their respective confirmation in that cadre, is there any valid basis for applying different standards to the members of the two groups for determining their seniority? Though drawn from two different sources, the direct recruits and promotees constitute in the instant case a single integrated cadre. They discharge identical functions, bear similar responsibilities and acquire an equal amount of experience in their respective assignments. And yet cl. (iii) of R. 8 provided that probationers recruited during any year shall in a bunch be treated as senior to promotees confirmed in that year. The plain arithmetic of this formula is that a direct recruit appointed on probation, say in 1966 is to be regarded as senior to a promotee who was appointed as an officiating Deputy Engineer, say in 1956, but was confirmed in 1966 after continuous officiation till then. This formula gives to the direct recruit even the benefit of his one year's period of training and another year's period of probation for the purposes of seniority and denies to promote the benefit of their long and valuable experience. This formula gives to the direct recruit even the benefit of his one year's period of training and another year's period of probation for the purposes of seniority and denies to promote the benefit of their long and valuable experience. If there was some intelligible ground for this differentiation bearing nexus with efficiency in public services, it might perhaps have been possible to sustain such a classification." In Railway Board v. Pitchumani, AIR 1972 SC 508 : (1972 Lab IC 305) more or less similar problem arose. In 1947 the private company which ran the Railway was amalgamated with Indian Railway Administration. Its employees were also absorbed. In January, 1967 rule was amended and it provided that a ministerial Railway servant who entered Government service on or before 31st Mar. 1938 and satisfied certain conditions shall be retained in service till he attained the age of sixty years. The expression `government service' was amended by a new notification in December, 1967 and it was provided that 'for the purpose of this clause the Expression `government service' includes service rendered in a former provincial Government and in ex-company and ex-State Railways, if the rules of the Company or the State had a provision similar to Cl. (b) above'. The effect of this was the tan employee of erstwhile company could continue up to 60 only if there was similar provision in the company he was employed. It was struck down by the High Court as violative of Article 14. The Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal held : "The question is whether the distinction made under the new Note to Cl. (b) substituted on Dec. 23,1967 valid? In our opinion, such a rule, which makes a distinction between the employees working under the same Indian Railway Administration is not valid. The position, after the new Note was added, is that the employee who had throughout been under the Indian Railway Administration is entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years; whereas the persons, like the respondent, who are also the employees of the Indian Railway Administration but whose previous services were with the Company, will have to retire at age of 58 years, because a provision similar to cl. (b) did not exist in the service condition of the company. (b) did not exist in the service condition of the company. Discrimination, on the face of it, is writ large in the new note, which is under challenge." Further once Class III and IV employees of erstwhile Insurers and direct recruits were treated on par in 1960 and staff regulation provided same date of retirement that is sixty then by their own conduct the corporation accepted that there was no reasonable basis to distinguish between two employees. Last but not the least how could the officers of Ministry of Defence on their absortion be treated differently. In the service in which they were recruited the age of retirement was fifty-eight years. But the Corporation treated them as transferred employees. In other words pretext was offered to exclude only those limited class of employees who were recruited as class III after establishment of Corporation and were promoted on merit shouldering same responsibility and doing same work as others. From whatever aspect it is examined namely, historical, legal or constitutional the action of opposite parties in framing regulations 19(2) cannot be sustained. It is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16. It is accordingly struck down. 8. At the out set Sri S.N. Verma, appearing for corporation urged that petition was belated. Reliance was placed on Rabindra Nath Bose v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 470 : (1970 Lab IC 402). It has no relevance. It was a case of seniority and allowing of petition would have resulted in disturbing entire chain of promotion which had taken place long ago. Apart from it observations in para 35 it is a complete reply to the argument. In case of retirement the cause of action continues till the employee does not retire. And in this case he came to this Court in May before his retirement. After retirement the petition was amended and the order retiring was also challenged the operation of which was stayed by this Court. 9. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. Regn. 19(2) of Staff Regulations is struck down as violative of Articles 14 and 16 so far it purports to retire a direct appointee to class III and promoted to Class I or II at age of 58 years. A direction is issued to opposite parties not to retire petitioner before he attains age of .sixty years because the age of superannuation is fifty-eight. A direction is issued to opposite parties not to retire petitioner before he attains age of .sixty years because the age of superannuation is fifty-eight. The petitioner shall be entitled to the costs.