JUDGMENT M. Katju, J. - The petitioner was appointed Assistant Teacher in Cantonment Primary School, Sadar Bazar, Cantonment Road, Jhansi on 20.7.1954, and he was promoted as Head Master on 1.7.1963. By means of this writ petition the petitioner is challenging the action of the respondent in retiring him at the age of 58 years, and he has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing that he should be continued in service till he attains the age of 60 years; and even thereafter till the session ends. 2. A counter-affidavit has been filed in this case, and I have heard the counsel for the parties, and I am proceeding to dispose of this writ petition finally. 3. Rule 22(1) of the Cantonment Board Service Rules, 1937 framed under the Cantonment Act, 1924 states "No servant shall be retained in service for a period after he attains the age of 58 years except with the sanction of the Officer Commanding-in- Chief... "A perusal of this rule shows that the age of superannuation of an employee of the Cantonment is 58 years, but extension of service can be granted by the appropriate authority in certain circumstances. The petitioner has relied on a letter of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence dated 21.8.1972 directing the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the command to deal with the request for extension of service beyond 58 years in accordance with the relevant rules. A true copy of the letter dated 21.8.1972 is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. This letter states that the Government has no objection if the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief grants extension under Rule 22 to the teachers of the Cantonment Board Schools provided no teacher is permitted in service beyond the age of 60 years. A perusal of this letter shows that it does not direct that the teachers in the said school should invariably be continued in service till the age of 60 years. Rather it is the discretion of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Command to grant extension or not. 4. The petitioner has alleged in paragraph 10 of the writ petition that the Government of India issued a memorandum directing that the teachers should be retired at the age of 58 years provided the teachers appointed prior to 1.4.1989 shall continue to enjoy the existing benefits of superannuation till the age of 60 years. 4. The petitioner has alleged in paragraph 10 of the writ petition that the Government of India issued a memorandum directing that the teachers should be retired at the age of 58 years provided the teachers appointed prior to 1.4.1989 shall continue to enjoy the existing benefits of superannuation till the age of 60 years. The petitioner has contended that on the basis of the said direction teachers of Cantonment Board, Schools retire on attaining the age of 60 years and on 30th June if the retirement age falls in the middle of the session. Petitioner's date of birth is 7.1.1934 and hence he completed the age of 58 years on 7.1.1992, but he claims that he should be continued in service till 30.6.1994. The petitioner has been informed by letter dated 4.4 91 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) that he will retire on 31.1.92, and he has challenged the said order by means of this writ petition. 5. As already stated above, Rule 22 does not give a teacher in the Cantonment Board Schools, a right to continue in service after attaining the age of 58 years. It is the discretion of the Officer Commanding-in-Chief 6f the Command or the Board to extend his service, or not provided that employee is not retained after the age of 60 years. In paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit reference has been made to a letter of the Government of India dated 20.5.88 according to which the age of retirement of teacher in Cantonment Board Schools has been uniformly fixed at 58 years, and all earlier instructions have been superseded. 6. In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. There is no order as to costs.