JUDGMENT : A.B. SRIVASTAVA. J. 1. All the three writ petitions raise a common question and have been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash a notice/order retiring the 3 Petitioners on superannuation on attaining the age of 58 years and mandamus directing the Respondents to allow them to continue in service till each one of them attains the age of 60 years, with full benefits as to pay and allowances. 2. All the three Petitioners were initially appointed on the post of Panchayat Secretary. The name of the said post was subsequently changed into Panchayat Sewak w.e.f. 1-10-1971 and Gram Panchayat Adhikari in the year 1981. The post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari was an inferior service included in Group 'D'. On 5-11-1985 the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a G.O. to the effect that such members of inferior service who were appointed before the said date and were continuing in inferior service will retire on attaining the age of 60 years and persons appointed subsequently will retire at the age of 58 years. The Petitioners though are presently officiating on the post of Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat), which is a Group 'C' post, their substantive post is still of Gram Panchayat Adhikari. While making amendment to Fundamental Rule 56 in the Financial Handbook Vol. II Parts II to IV, vide Annexure 2' G.O. dated 28-7-1987. it was also provided that employees in Group 'D' appointed prior to 5-11-1988 will retire on completion of 60 years. In disregard and violation of the aforesaid rules and Government Orders, however, the Respondent No. 1 Zila Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Meerut issued the impugned notices/order to Petitioner Om Prakash Sharma to retire on 31-1-1992, Petitioner Mahabir Singh to retire on 31-7-1991 and to Petitioner Ishwar Singh to retire on 31-1-1992 on completing 58 years of age. The said notice/order being illegal and contrary to the rules and Government Orders is liable to be quashed and the Petitioners aforesaid are entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years respectively on 31-1-1994, 31-7-1993 and 31-1-1994. 3. The petitions have been resisted by the Respondents on the ground that post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari held by the Petitioners became a Group 'C' post w.e.f. 5-11-1985. Consequently, the age of superannuation 60 years applicable to Group 'D' posts is not applicable to them. 3. The petitions have been resisted by the Respondents on the ground that post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari held by the Petitioners became a Group 'C' post w.e.f. 5-11-1985. Consequently, the age of superannuation 60 years applicable to Group 'D' posts is not applicable to them. Further the Petitioners having been promoted to, and holding, the post of A.D.O. Panchayat, which also is a Group 'C post, they are liable to retire on superannuation on attaining 58 years of age. 4. It has been submitted by Shri Ashok Bhushan appearing on behalf of the Petitioners that despite the fact of the posts of Gram Panchayat Adhikari having been raised to the status of Group 'C' post w.e.f. 5-11-1985, the Petitioners who were appointed to Group 'D' post prior to the said post will continue to be governed by the rule relating to superannuation of persons holding Group 'D' posts. The further contention is that the promotion of the Petitioners to the post of A.D.O. (Panchayat) will also not change the situation in this regard because the promotions have been made in officiating capacity. 5. There is no dispute about the fact that for the post of Panchayat Secretary to which the Petitioners were initially appointed as well as the post of Panchayat Sewak and Gram Panchayat Adhikari, till the same was included in Group 'C' posts, the age of superannuation was 60 years. By means of G.O. dated 23-7-1981 the post of Panchayat Sewak was placed in Group 'C'. The Uttar Pradesh Gram Panchayat Sewak Service Rules, 1978 was amended by a Notification dated 27-3-1989, according to which the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari was made a non-gazetted service comprising Group 'C' post. Under these circumstances, the Petitioners ceased to hold a Group 'D' post on the date the question of their superannuation arose and consequently could not claim benefit of superannuation on attaining 60 years of age. The Petitioners are also not entitled to the benefit of the proviso to the Fundamental Rule 56 as amended by Notification dated 28-7-1987 for the same reason. 6. Yet another factor negativing the claim of the Petitioners to be entitled to superannuate on attaining 60 years of age prescribed for Group 'D' post is that they admittedly on the date the notices for retirement were given and the petitions were filed, were holding the posts of A.D.O. Panchayat. 6. Yet another factor negativing the claim of the Petitioners to be entitled to superannuate on attaining 60 years of age prescribed for Group 'D' post is that they admittedly on the date the notices for retirement were given and the petitions were filed, were holding the posts of A.D.O. Panchayat. The contention that the promotion. will not enure for determining the age of superannuation, being an officiating promotion is not tenable because for all intents and purposes as to salary and other benefits there is no difference in a person promoted on officiating basis and one promoted on regular post to a higher post. Officiating service and the pay and other emoluments drawn on such post will also count towards pension and other retirement benefits. It would lead to an incongruous situation if the. Petitioners on one hand are allowed the retirement benefits of the post held in presenti and on the other are allowed the benefit of retirement age on the basis of an inferior post to which they were appointed initially. 7. The Petitioners under the above circumstances have not made out their claim to continue on their post till they attain the age of 60 years and the impugned notice of their retirement on attaining 58 years of age does not suffer from any infirmity. The petitions, accordingly, have to fail. 8. All the three petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. The interim order dated 3-1-92 is withdrawn. In view of the retirement of the Petitioners having become effective w.e.f. date mentioned in the notices in that regard given to them, they shall be entitled to the consequential retirement benefits, which shall be paid to them expeditiously preferably within a period of 3 months, unless it cannot be done for any unavoidable reasons. 9. No order as to costs is made in the circumstances.