JUDGMENT : B.L. Hansaria, C.J. - The petitioner is a matriculate of T%9. He has been a Khalasi ever since 1372, He has been so employed as art N. M. R. workman. Placed thus he was looking forward to some improve- ment in his working condition and with this end in view he got his name registered in the Employment Exchange of Kamakshyanagar. It seems, that at one point of time luck. smiled on him as he was called for interview for the post of Assistant; Tax Collector on 25-6-1986 and was ultimately selected for the post finding him suitable after relaxing the age limit. The Order of appointment was passed by the Bhuban Notified Area Council and the petitioner joined on 30-6-1986. As, however, under the second proviso to Rule 408 of the Orissa Municipal Rules, 1953, the relaxation of age limit has to receive prior approval of the State Government, the matter was referred to the Government and a communication was received from the Additional Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, that the approval had not been given. This led to the termination of the service of the petitioner on 9-12-1986, Hence the approach so this Court. 2. It is submitted by Shri Patibhat no reason has been assigned for not giving approval to the relaxation of age limit by the Government. Our attention is drawn to the case of Rattan Lal and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, ) in which it was observed that in such cases the State Government should sympathetically consider the question of relaxing the qualification of maximum age prescribed for appointment to the posts in question. 3. When power of relaxation has been conferred, we are of the view that the same has to be exercised in proper cases, In this connection, we may refer to Jullus v. Bishop of Oxford 1880(5) A. C. 214, where it we said that if power is coupled with duty, the done of the power has to exercise it for the benefit of those who have that right. In this connection we may note the following observations of Cairns, Lord Cairns LC. In this connection we may note the following observations of Cairns, Lord Cairns LC. which have been repeated in innumerable decisions : "There may be something in the nature of the thing empowered to be done, something in the object for which it is done, some- thing in the condition under which it is to be done, something in the title of person or persons for whose benefit the power is . to be exercised, which may couple the power with a duty, and make it the duty of the person in whom the power is reposed to exercise that power when called upon to do so." This view was approved by the House of Lords in Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture 1968 A. C. 997, wherein by referring to Julius (supra) it was stated that when power is conferred for the purpose of enforcing a right, there may be duty cast on the donee of the power to exercise it for the benefit of those who have that fight when required on their behalf. 4. As in the present case, the petitioner was working as N. M. R. as on for long 14 years before he was selected for the post of Assistant Tax Collector, and as he was over aged by about a few years, and as would gel no further chance to improve his lot, we are of the view that this was a fit case where relaxation of age ought to have been granted. We would, therefore, remit the case to Government to pass appropriate orders within three months from today keeping in view the observations made by us. 5. In the result, the writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. S.K. Mohanty, J. I agree.