JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava, J. - In this bunch of writ petitions, the validity of U.P. Zila Parishads Service (Eighth Amendment) Rules, reducing the age of retirement of the employees of the Zila Parishad from 60 years to 58 years is the subject matter of challenge. This matter came up before this Bench and this Bench in writ Petition No. 2018 of 1980 Jadgeo Prasad v. District Magistrate, Rae Bareli, decided on 17.4.1989 held that the age of retirement could have been reduced and the reduction of retirement age is legal and the Rules do not suffer from any illegality. In holding the same, reference was made to the observations made by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in K. Nagaraja and others v. State of Ahdhra Pradesh and others (AIR 1985 Supreme Court 551). It was observed by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court: ......it is difficult to hold that in reducing the age of retirement from 58 to 55 the State Government or the Legislature acted arbitrarily or irrationally. There are precedents within our country itself for fixing the retirement age at 55 or from reducing it from 58 to 55. Either the one or the other of these two stages is regarded generally as acceptable, depending upon the employment policy of the Government of the day. It is not possible o lay down an inflexible rule that 58 years is a reasonable age for Retirement and 55 is not. 2. Reference was also made to the case reported in AIR 1987 SC page 1527 Life Insurance Corporation of India and another etc. v. S.S. Srivastava and others, it was a case of a statutory corporation and it was observed: ......Court can take judicial notice of the different ages of retirement prevailing in the several services in India. In almost all the public sector corporations, Central services and State services 58 years age is considered to be reasonable age at which officers can be directed to retire from their service. So, the determination of 58 years as the age of superannuation by itself cannot be considered to be arbitrary, 3. Learned counsel made reference to Section 39 and 46 of the U.P. Kshettra Samities and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam, 1961, (hereinafter referred as the Adhiniyam). So, the determination of 58 years as the age of superannuation by itself cannot be considered to be arbitrary, 3. Learned counsel made reference to Section 39 and 46 of the U.P. Kshettra Samities and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam, 1961, (hereinafter referred as the Adhiniyam). Section 39 of the said Adhiniyam provides that subject to any special directions issued by the State Government from time to time, a Zila Parishad shall have the staff enumerated in the Section. Section 46 provides for the consequences of enforcement of the Act on the existing officers and servants. Section 46 reads as follows: 46. Consequences of enforcement of the Act on the existing officers and servants (A) All officers and servants in the employment of the District Board constituted under the United Provinces District Boards Act 1922 and of the Antarim Zila Parishad immediately before the appointed date shall notwithstanding anything in Sections 39 and 43 but subject to the provisions of subsection (2) be officers and servants employed by the Zila Parishad and until appointed 10 posts created under Section 39 shall be entitled to same salaries and allowances and shall be subject to the same conditions of service to which they were entitled or were subject immediately before the said date. 4. It was, however, contended that in view of Section 46 the conditions of services were to remain the same and could not have been changed. This argument does not hold good as the Legislature has the power to amend the Rules and by way of amendment the age has been reduced. Sections 39 and 46 in no way go against the amendment or prohibit change of conditions of service for all times to come 5. In this view we uphold our judgment and are of the view that the age of retirement could have been reduced and the amendment is legal. There is definite purpose behind the amendment and the said purpose is in conformity with law. 6. The writ petitions have got no force and are accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. (Petitions dismissed)