Judgment :- 1. Petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the Registration Department of the erstwhile State of Madras on 23-4-1954. He got an interdepartmental transfer to the Revenue Department on 1-2-1956. On the formation of Kerala consequent on the reorganisation States with effect from 1-14-1956, he was allotted to the State of Kerala. He was bound by the provisions of the Kerala Service Rules. R.60 thereof prescribes the age of retirement as 55 years. The age of retirement which was 55 years in the State of Madras at the time of reorganisation of States has been subsequently enhanced to 58 years. Petitioner submits that had he continued in the State of Madras, he would have been able to continue in service till he attains the age of 58 years. He also submits that he was entitled to opt in favour of the Madras rules by reason of Ext. P2. It is his further submission that the State Government is bound to consider Ext. P3 representation submitted by him as an application to opt in favour of the Madras Fundamental Rules enabling him to continue in service upto 58 years. He relies on Exts. P4 and P5 judgments of this court. According to him, those judgments enable allotted officers to opt in favour of Madras Rules in the matter of age of retirement from service. Reference is made to Ext. P6 order which was passed consequent upon Ext. P4 judgment. 2. It is not seriously controverted that the petitioner is bound by the provisions of the Kerala Service Rules. This position is clear from R.2 Part.1 of those Rules. Admittedly, he had not exercised option in terms of Ext. P2 order to be governed by the Madras Rules, even in respect of the matters specified therein. Nor did he exercise any option in terms of the notification dated 10-11-1959 nor any of the Government Orders extending the period of option that he shall not be governed by the Kerala Service Rules. Obviously, therefore, at least till such time as Ext. P3 was submitted, the petitioner was governed by R.60, Part.1, Kerala Service Rules. Under that rule, he is liable to retire from service on attainment of 55 years of age. 3. The only question therefore is whether this legal position is altered by Exts. P4 and P5 judgments of this court. Obviously, therefore, at least till such time as Ext. P3 was submitted, the petitioner was governed by R.60, Part.1, Kerala Service Rules. Under that rule, he is liable to retire from service on attainment of 55 years of age. 3. The only question therefore is whether this legal position is altered by Exts. P4 and P5 judgments of this court. Ext.P4 dealt with the case of an employee of the Government of India in the Directorate of Industrial Training. He was not an employee of the Government of the erstwhile State of Madras. Nor was he allotted to the State of Kerala in terms of S.115 of the States Reorganisation Act. His status was indeterminate at the time when Ext. P2 notification was issued. Nor was he given a right of option at the time when notification dated 10-11-1959 was issued. Virtually, therefore, he had no opportunity of exercising option to be governed by the pre-existing service conditions after he was finally treated as an allottee to the State of Kerala, It was in those circumstances that a Division Bench of this court held that the State Government was bound to accept the option exercised by the petitioner to be governed by the pre-existing service conditions relating to retirement. In Ext. P5, my learned brother Bhaskaran Nambiar, J., had to deal with another case of an erstwhile employee of the Directorate of Training under the Government of India. He was placed in an exactly similar position as the petitioner whose case was dealt with in Ext. P4. On identical circumstances, this court held that, the employee who was not an allottee to the State of Kerala on reorganisation of States but was subsequently treated as one such, was entitled to exercise his option at least once. This court observed, that the fact that the option was exercised beyond the time fixed in Ext. P2 or the notification dated 10-11-1959 or any other order should not stand in the way of the State Government considering the only option exercised by an officer of this nature. It is evident, that employees of the Government of India, who were entitled to continue in service till the attainment of 58 years, according to the pre-existing service conditions and who could not opt in favour of those service conditions form a distinct and separate class. It is evident, that employees of the Government of India, who were entitled to continue in service till the attainment of 58 years, according to the pre-existing service conditions and who could not opt in favour of those service conditions form a distinct and separate class. Petitioner belongs to an altogether different class of employees viz., those who were allotted to the State of Kerala and who had or are deemed to have opted in favour of the provisions of the Kerala Service Rules. 4. Petitioner submits that officers attain the prime of their efficiency by the time they attain 55 years of age and their continuance in service is mere profitable to the State than their retirement. Those are aspects of policy which have to be considered by the Government as held in K. G. O. Front v. State of Kerala, 1987 (1) KLT 336. It is not for this court to direct retention of employees bound to be retired from service on the attainment of the age of superannuation. The Original Petition cannot, therefore, be entertained and the same is hereby dismissed. Issue a photo copy of this judgment to counsel for the petitioner on usual terms.