Judgment R.A. Sharma, J. 1. By means of these writ petitions, petitioners, who claim to be Lekhpal, have challenged the orders of their retirement from service at the age of 58 years. Learned counsel for the petitioners have made two submissions in support of the writ petitions, namely, (i) Rule 31 of Lekhpal Service Rules, 1958, which prescribed the age of retirement at 58 years, is ultra vires ; and (ii) Lekhpals belong to Group 'D' of the State's service and can be retired only at the age of 60 years in view of the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56. Sri M.M. Ghildiyal, learned Standing Counsel has disputed the above submissions and has pressed for dismissal of the writ petitions. 2. Due to the agitation of Patwaris though out the State, the Government of U.P. in 1953, decided to reorganise the services of Patwaris and in connection there with issued a Government Order dated 27-4-1953 (hereinafter referred to as the G.O.) according to which the cadre of Lekhpal was created in place of Patwaris. Sub-paragraph 3 of paragraph 2 of the G.O. laid down four sources for the cadre of Lekhpal. The relevant extract of the said sub-para 2 is reproduced below :- "3. The cadre of "Lekhpal" would be made up as follows : (a) of all patwaris who did not resign. (b) of the patwaris who withdraw their resignation by March 4, 1953, before they were accepted. (c) of the patwaris who withdraw their resignation before March 4, 1953 but after their acceptance. In categories (b) and (c) above only these patwaris will be reabsorbed who have had an excellent record of work and unsullied reputation and who have not taken an active part in agitation. The reabsorption of patwaris in categories (ab) and (c) would be subject to a further condition that they shall not have attained the age of 57 years 6 months. (d) of fresh recruits subject to the condition that 10 percent of the number of such recruits should be reserved for scheduled caste and due regard is made of the interests of backward classes in accordance with the provisions laid down in appointment (B) Department G.O. No. O. 2266/11-2-13-1940 dated August 26, 1950". (d) of fresh recruits subject to the condition that 10 percent of the number of such recruits should be reserved for scheduled caste and due regard is made of the interests of backward classes in accordance with the provisions laid down in appointment (B) Department G.O. No. O. 2266/11-2-13-1940 dated August 26, 1950". By paragraph 18 of the G.O. which is reproduced below, the age of retirement was fixed at 55 years for all recruits excepting those whose cases fall within sub paragraph 3(a), (b) and (c), whose age of retirement was fixed at 60 years : "18. The age of retirement would be 55 years subject to the Collector's power to retire those who attain the age of 50 years or more and their work or health is found unsatisfactory. Provide that the age of retirement of those members who are absorbed in accordance with the conditions laid down under sub-para 3 (a), (b) and (o) of para 3 shall be 60 years". By the G.O. certain Patwaris, who had not resigned or if resigned had withdrawn their resignations before 4-4-1953, were absorbed in the Lekhpal service and their age of retirement was fixed at 60 years. For all other Lekhpals the age of retirement was fixed at 55 years (which was later on changed to 58 years) In fact the services of those Patwaris, whose cases fall within sub-paras 3(a), (b) and (c) were transferred from the cadre of Patwaris to the new cadre of Lekhpals. Patwaris were the persons, who were maintaining the revenue records of the villages and on account of the resignation by them on mass scale it was almost impossible for the State to have trained hands to replace them, Hence the necessity to retain some of the Patwaris by offering them attractive condition of service The reason for fixing two different ages for retirement of the Lekhpals, one for the Patwaris whose cases fall within sub-paras 3(a), (b) and (c) and the other for the rest, was the necessity felt by the Government for retaining at least some of the Patwaris in the cadre of Lekhpals so that the revenue records of the villages may be maintained till new recruits are trained and get experience. 3. 3. In 1958, Lekhpal Service Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) were framed by the Government under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India Rule 2 declared the Lekhpal Service as a nongazetted subordinate service and Rule 31 prescribed the age of retirement of Lekhpals. Rule 31, being relevant is reproduced below : "31. Age of Retirement-The age of retirement in the case of Lekhpals governed by conditions laid down in sub-paragraph 3(a), (b) and (c) of para 2 of G.O. No. 443/18 dated 27th April, 1953 shall be 60 years and in the case of other members of the service shall be the date on which he attains the age of 58 years. He may be retained in service after the date of compulsory retirement with the sanction of the State Government on public grounds, which may be recorded in writing but he shall not be retained after the age of 60 years except under very special circumstances. Provided that- (i) the appointing authority, may after giving at least 3 months previous notice in writing to the Lekhpals without assigning any reason retire him from service on the date on which he attains the age of 55 years or on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice. (ii) a Lekhpal may after giving at least three months previous notice in writing to the appointing authority, voluntarily retire from service on the date on which he attains the age of 55 years or on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice. Provided further that- (i) the notice of voluntary retirement given under the first proviso by a Lekhpal against whom a disciplinary proceeding is pending or contemplated, shall be effective only if it is accepted by the appointing authority subject to the condition that in case of a contemplated disciplinary proceeding the Lekhpal is so informed before the expiry of the notice ; (ii) the notice once given by a Lekhpal under the first proviso shall not be withdrawn by him except with the permission of the appointing authority". Rule 31 has maintained the same distinction, regarding age of retirement, which was made by the G.O. between Lekhpal, whose cases fall within sub-paras 3 (a), (b) and (c) of para 2 of the G. O. and the rest, who do not fall within the above sub-paras. 4. Rule 31 has maintained the same distinction, regarding age of retirement, which was made by the G.O. between Lekhpal, whose cases fall within sub-paras 3 (a), (b) and (c) of para 2 of the G. O. and the rest, who do not fall within the above sub-paras. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that fixation of different age of retirement for the Lekhpals by Rule 31 is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and, as such, the Rule is ultra vires. It is not possible to agree with the learned counsel. Classifications of the employees into different groups for the purposes of fixing the age of retirement on the basis of the date of entry into service, source of recruitment and/or requirement of the service necessitating the appointment of special trained hands, have been upheld by the Supreme Court from time to time. In L.I.C. v. S.S. Srivastava, AIR 1987 SC 1527, Supreme Court upheld the validity of the service regulations which prescribed different age of retirement of the employees depending on the date of their entry into service, source of recruitment as well as necessity for having certain type of persons in the service. In that ease the service regulation fixed the age of retirement at 60 years for those' who were transferred from the other undertakings, whose business was taken over as well as for those, who were working in the Government Department and joined the service of the Corporation on need being felt by the Government and the Corporation for their service in the Corporation. For the rest the age of retirement was fixed at 58 years. The employees for whom different age of retirement was fixed, were treated as employees belonging to different classes and the difference in the age of retirement was upheld due to historical reasons. Similarly in the case of B.S. Yadav v. Chief Manager, Central Bank of India, AIR 1987 SC 1706 , the prescription of different age of retirement for these, who were recruited prior to the nationalisation of Banks and those, who were recruited after the nationalisation was upheld by the Supreme Court. In this connection it may be observed that Patwaris, whose cases are covered by sub-paras 3(a), (b) and (c) belong to diminishing cadre. In this connection it may be observed that Patwaris, whose cases are covered by sub-paras 3(a), (b) and (c) belong to diminishing cadre. Most of them must have retired by now and only few may be left, who are to retire in near future, and thereafter only one class of Lekhpal will be left in the service in respect of whom the Rules have fixed the retirement age at 38 years. In paragraphs 22 and 32 of its judgment in the case of L.L.C. v. S.S. Srivastava (supra), one of the reasons for upholding the classification of the employees for fixing different age of retirement, which was taken into consideration by the Supreme Court was that those for whom the retirement age was fixed at 60 years is a diminishing cadre and after sometime none of them would remain in service and thereafter the uniform age of 58 years will be the age of retirement for all. The prescription of different age of retirement for Patwaris whose cases fall within sub-paras 3(a), (b) and (c) of the G.O. and for the rest, who do not belong to those categories, cannot be said to be discriminatory, arbitrary or unreasonable. The G.O. as well as the Rule 31 are not ultra vires. The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, as such, has to be rejected. 5. Another submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners in this connection is that Lekhpals, being the employees of Group D can only be retired at the age of 60 years in accordance with the provisions of Fundamental Rule 456 and Rule 31, which is in consistent with the Fundamental Rule 56 is ultra vires. This submission also lacks merit. Although, Patwaris belong to Group 'C' and not to Group 'D' of the State Service but presuming that they belong to Group 'D' service. Rule 31 cannot be declared ultra vires on the ground of its inconsistency with Fundamental Rule 56. It is open to the State to prescribe different age of retirement for its employees even if they belong to the same Group provided that do not constitute the same class. It all depends on various factors such as nature of the duties, source of their recruitment, conditions under which they work and the historical reason on account of which different age of retirement is prescribed. It all depends on various factors such as nature of the duties, source of their recruitment, conditions under which they work and the historical reason on account of which different age of retirement is prescribed. Merely because Fundamental Rule 56 has prescribed particular age for retirement, the State is not precluded from making new Rules under proviso to Art 309 of the Constitution fixing different age of retirement for some of Its employees if by such Rules age of retirement which is fixed, is different from that provided by Fundamental Rule 56, they cannot be declared as ultra vires. Principle of estoppel against the exercise of Legislative power in future cannot be applied. 6. As regards the second submission, it may be mentioned that as pet Rule 2 the Lekhpal's Service is non-gazetted subordinate service. The U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board Act, 1988 provides for constitution of a Sub-ordinate Services Selection Board and by Section 2 of the said Act Sub-ordinate Services have been declared to be of Group 'C'. Although the above Act is not applicable to all services of Group 'C' as it depends on the Government to apply it to those services of Group 'C' where selection is to be made through the Selection Board constituted under the Act. But what is important is that subordinate service is a service of Group 'C' Class IV Employees Service Rules, 1975 and Group 'D' Employees Service Rules, 1985 have enumerated posts of Group 'D' from the perusal of which it is apparent that only those posts belong to Group 'D' incumbents of which are to perform manual duty/work. Lekhpals do not perform manual function. Their duty is to maintain revenue records of the villages of their area. Person performing such a function Is not treated to be an employee of Group 'D'. Before April, 1965 the age of retirement fixed under Fundamental Rule 56 for inferior service was 60 years and for others 58 years was the age of retirement Those employees, whose pay scale was Rs. 22-27, 27-32 and 32-37 belong to inferior service. The pay scales of the Government employees were revised and from April, 1965 aforesaid pay scales belonging to inferior service were raised to Rs. 53-75 and 60-80. As such upto April, 1965 those employees, whose pay scale was Rs. 22-27, 27-32 and 32-37 belong to inferior service. The pay scales of the Government employees were revised and from April, 1965 aforesaid pay scales belonging to inferior service were raised to Rs. 53-75 and 60-80. As such upto April, 1965 those employees, whose pay scale was Rs. 22-27, 27-32 and 32-37 and after April, 1965 the employees, whose pay scale was Rs 53-75 and 60-80 could retire at the age of 60 and others continued to retire at the age of 58 years. By the aforesaid G.O. dated 27-4-1953 the pay scale prescribed for the Lekhpals was Rs. 35-1-55 and pay scale of selection grade of Lekhpals was Rs. 55-2-65. The pay scales of Lekhpals so prescribed in 1953 was definitely much higher than the pay scale of inferior service and they could not have taken advantage of the Fundamental Rule 56 which fixed the age of retirement for inferior service at 60 years. The pay scales of Lekhpals like other employees were also raised and they were not part of the inferior service even after April, 1965. All this is clear from the Government Order of 1987, issued In connection with fixing age of retirement of the employees in Fundamental Rule 56. Learned counsel for the petitioners have however, placed reliance on the Government order dated 27-2-1982, whereby the Government employees were classified into four categories, namely, A. B. C and D on the basis of their pay scale. According to the above G.O. non-gazetted posts, minimum pay of which is Rs. 354/- or above belong to Group 'C' of the State's service and if the pay scale is less than the above, the post belongs to Group 'D'. It has been asserted by the petitioners that their pay scale at the time when the aforesaid GO, was issued in 1982 was less than 354/- per month and. as such, they fall within the category of Group 'D' and are entitled to retire at the age of 60 years under the Fundamental Rule 56. It has been asserted by the petitioners that their pay scale at the time when the aforesaid GO, was issued in 1982 was less than 354/- per month and. as such, they fall within the category of Group 'D' and are entitled to retire at the age of 60 years under the Fundamental Rule 56. This has been seriously disputed by the learned Standing Counsel ; but it is not necessary to go into this controversy, because now it is of academic value only Learned Standing counsel, relying upon the Government Order, has stated that with effect from 1-1-1986 the pay scales of employees of Group 'C' have again been revised and the pay scales of employees of Group 'C' is Rs. 950-1500/-. The Lekhpals are in the above pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/-. This is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In fact in para 15 of the writ petition of Sri Abhai Singh, it has been stated that the petitioner therein, who is a Lekhpal, is in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500. The employees of Group 'D' are those, whose salary is below Rs. 950- per month. The position that stands is that an employee in the pay scale of Rs. 950 onward is an employee of Group 'C' and petitioners as such belong to Group 'C' of the State's service. 7. Presuming that a Lekhpal belongs to Croup 'D' service. Rule 31 of the Rules has prescribed his age of retirement at 38 years. As long as this Rule stands the Lekhpal has to retire at the age of 58 years except those Lekhpals, whose cases are covered by sub-paras 3(a), (b) and (c) of the G.O. Rule 31, as mentioned above, is a valid Rule. 8. For the reasons given above. The writ petitions lack merit and are dismissed. Petition dismissed.