JUDGMENT : M.C. Agarwal, J. This writ petition seeks the relief of quashing of an order dated 10-7-1992 by which the Petitioner has been informed that he would retire from service on 31st July 1992, having attained the age of 58 years It is further prayed that the Respondents be directed to treat the Petitioner in service till he attains the age of 60 years. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself in accordance with the Rules of the Court. 3. The Petitioner was employed as a Clerk in the office of the Regional Assistant Director of Education, Varanasi His date of birth is 28-7-1934 and he entered government service on 12-6-1956. According to him, as per the prevalent Rules, he should retire from government service on attaining the age of sixty years. No such rule has been mentioned in the writ petition or in the affidavit annexed thereto nor was cited before us at the time of arguments. The Petitioner has annexed to the petition a copy of Government order dated 26-7-1987 by which the U. P. Fundamental (First Amendment) Rules, 1987 were promulgated- This is Annexure I to the writ petition. It is printed at page 146 of Manual of Uttar Pradesh Government Orders by Har Swarup Nigam, 1992 edition. The Government Order is in Hindi and the relevant portion thereof by which Rule 56(A) of the Fundamental Rules has been amended with effect from 5-11-1985 is as below: 56 (ka)--Is niyam ke anya khanda me anyatha upabandhit ke sabaya pratyek sarkari sebak us mas me jisme wah attawan barsa ke aayu prapta kare. antim din aparhan me seba nibrit hoga (use adbiwarsta par seba nibritta ke dinank ke paschat sarkar ke purba swrikitl se Lok adhar par jise abhilikhit kiya jayega. Seba me rakha ja sakta hai. Kintu ati bishesh paristhitiyon ke sibaya use sath barsh ke aayu ke paschat seba me nehi rakba jana chahiya. Parantu parch November 1985 ke purba bharti kiya gaya aur samuh "gha" pad ko dharan karne wala koi sarkari sebak us mas ke jisme woh sath barsh ke aayu prapta kare antim din aprahn me seva se nibrit hoga. Kintu ati bishesh paristhitiyon ke sibaya use sath barsh ke aayu ke paschat seba me nehi rakba jana chahiya. Parantu parch November 1985 ke purba bharti kiya gaya aur samuh "gha" pad ko dharan karne wala koi sarkari sebak us mas ke jisme woh sath barsh ke aayu prapta kare antim din aprahn me seva se nibrit hoga. Spastikarar--Upyukta parantuk un mamlon par lagu nehi hoga jahan ukta parantuk me nirdhist pad/padon ko prasthist me 27 February 1982 ke paschat paribartan kiy gaya ho aur uchchatar samoh ke pad/padon me bargikrit kiya gaya ho. The English translation of the amended rule, as we understand it, would be as under: 56 (A) Except as otherwise provided in the other parts of this rule, every government servant shall retire from service in the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty eight years. He can be retained in service after the date of retirement on superannuation only in public interest on the prior approval of the government which shall be recorded in writing, but except in very special circumstances he should not be retained in service after the age of sixty years. Provided that a government servant of group 'D' recruited prior to 5th of November, 1985 shall retire in the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attain the age of sixty years: Explanation: The above proviso will not be applicable to those cases where any. change has taken place after the 27th February 1982 in the status of the past/posts specified in the above proviso and classified as post/posts of higher group. The above rule would show (i) that the age of superannuation of government servants in general is 58 years; (ii) the government has reserved to itself the power to grant an extension in exceptional cases if public interest so require?; (iii) employees of Group 'D' who were recruited prior to 5-11- 1985 have been exempted from the general rule and would retire on attaining the age of 6o years; and (iv) an employee, though recruited as a group 'D' employee, who has ceased to be a group 'D' employee because of up gradation of the post, cannot take the advantage of the proviso; in other words he would be governed by the main rule and retire on attaining the age of fifty eight years. 4. 4. The case of the Petitioner, as advanced in the petition and as argued before us is that the power reserved in Rule 56(A) by the Government to grant extension to any employees is arbitrary and for its exercise no norms have been laid nor any guidelines framed- Therefore, this power is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as by its exercise the government can discriminate between employees. It has been alleged in para 7 of the petition that some persons having poorer service records than that of the Petitioner have been given extension up to 60 years. No instances have, however, been cited in the petition or in the affidavit annexed thereto to support the allegations of discrimination. A perusal of the Rule itself shows that the rule has a built-in mechanism to check arbitrariness. Extension is by way of a rare exception. It can be granted only when public interest so demands and the prior written approval of the government is required. These safeguards are, in our view, sufficient to check arbitrariness. If inspire of these safeguards, arbitrary extension is given to any employee, it can be reviewed by a Competent Authority as well as by the superior Courts. So far as the present case is concerned, the Petitioner has not made out any case of discrimination. 5. The challenge to the Rule on the ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, is even otherwise, in our view, a self defeating one. If the power is unconstitutional, then the court will strike down that part of the rule that grants that power to the government with the result that there will be no rule under which extension could be granted to the Petitioner. No court can *hold that since the power to grant extension ii arbitrary, therefore, the valid part of the rule becomes inoperative and the exception should be treated as the general rule. This line of argument, therefore, fails. 6. It was then contended that by virtue of the proviso to Rule 56(A) the age of superannuation of the Petitioner should be 60 years as he was recruited prior to 5-11-1985. It does not require any effort to see that the proviso applies to group 'D' employees who are also known as class IV employees. 6. It was then contended that by virtue of the proviso to Rule 56(A) the age of superannuation of the Petitioner should be 60 years as he was recruited prior to 5-11-1985. It does not require any effort to see that the proviso applies to group 'D' employees who are also known as class IV employees. This category of employees consists of peons, Chaukidars gardeneners etc The Petitioner has always been and at the time of retirement is in the clerical service which comes in group 'C or class III. Thus the proviso or the Explanation there to cannot be applicable in the case of the Petitioner. 7. The impugned letter dated 10-7-1992 which is described by the Petitioner as an order is just an intimation to the employee that he is due to retire on 31-7-1992 The Petitioner admittedly attains the age of 58 years in July 1992 and therefore, by virtue of Rule 56(A) as discussed above superannuated on 31-7-1992. There is no escape for the Petitioner from this certainty. 8. For the reasons discussed above find no force in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.