This writ application has been filed by an Association of teachers, known as 'Assam Madhyamik Sikshak Aru Karmachari Santha' praying for a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction. 2. The facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows : The petitioner Association is a registered society and is recognised by the Government of Assam. It represents teachers and other employees of the High and Higher Secondary and Madrassa Schools of Assam. The teachers of the petitioner association have been employed in different schools, receiving grants from the State Government for maintenance. These schools are guided and controlled by The Assam Aided High and Higher Secondary Employees, Rules, 1960 framed by the State Government, for short 'the Rules'. These Rules regulate recruitment and conditions of service of persons employed in Aided High and Higher Secondary Schools. However, the Rules were amended in 1965 and a new set of Rules, known as Amended Assam Aided High and Higher Secon­dary School Employees Rules, 1965 were brought into force. As per these Rules, the age of superannuation of teachers is 60 years which may extend upto the age of 63 years in some case, it may extend beyond the age of 63 years subject to the maximum period of one year only. On 28.9.77 the Government of Assam promulgated an Ordinance, known as The Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Ordinance, 1977, pro­vincialising the services of the teachers and other employees of all Secondary Schools of the State. This Ordinance came into force on 1.10.77. Thereafter, it was repealed by an Act, known as The Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Act, 1977, for short the Act. As per section 4 of the Act, all employees other than Grade IV employees of a Secondary School coming within the purview of the Act, shall, on attaining the age of 58 years, go on superannuation. However, the Grade IV employees shall continue upto the age of 60 years. As per section 4(3) of the Act any existing employee, other than the Grade IV employees, who does not intend to go on superannuation on attaining the age of 58 years shall have the option to continue upto the age of 60 years under the same terms and conditions which were applicable to him before the appointed day and in that event he shall not be entitled to any pension or gratuity. Such employees shall give an option in writing to that effect in the manner prescribed within a period of three months from the appointed day. The existing employees, who do not give such option in writing within the date specified above shall be deemed to have opted for going on super­annuation on attaining the age of 58 years. Further section 4 of the Act directs the Government to prescribe the manner by which the teachers intending to continue till the completion of 60 years may express such intention. However, the Government have not yet taken any step to prescribe the manner as per the said Rule. Therefore, the employees, who wanted to continue in service could not submit the option in writing in the prescribed manner within the specified period. Hence, the rights of the existing employees to exercise option has been denied. The petitioner further states that various Commissions, viz; Kothari Commission in 1964 and Chattopadhaya Commission in 1984, appointed by the Government recommended that 60 years should be the age of superannuation. But the Government of Assam have not taken any step in this regard, even though, the Central Government and some other State Governments have already implemented the recommendation. The petitioner-association further states that prior to provincialisation the existing employees had the right to serve upto 60 years with extension upto 63 years. By the provincialisation Act 1977, the age of superannuation has been reduced from 60 years to 58 years with an option to continue upto 60 years under the same terms and conditions which were applicable to them before provincialisation and in such case they shall not be entitled to any pension or gratuity. Therefore, section 4 (3) of the Act is discriminatory and against public policy, as it takes away the right of those employees serving, upto 60 years of age to enjoy the benefit of pension and gratuity. Hence the present petition. 3. Heard Mr. BK Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. JJ.: Choudhury, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State. Mr. Hence the present petition. 3. Heard Mr. BK Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. JJ.: Choudhury, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State. Mr. Das raised the following points (a) The Government have not yet prescribed the manner of exercising; option as required under section 4 of the Act, thus the existing employees have been deprived of the opportunity to exercise the option; (b) There has been violation of equality clause of Article 14, inasmuch as a class of teachers retiring at the age of 58 years shall be entitled to pension and gratuity etc. and the other teachers who continue to serve upto the age of 60 years of age by exercising the option are deprived of the benefit of pension and gratuity; and (c) In spite of recommendations of various Commissions, recommending, the age of superannuation of teachers at 60 years, the Government of Assam have not taken any step to raise the age of superannuation, eventhough, the Central Government and some of the State Governments have already imple­mented the recommendations. 4. Mr. Choudhury, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate, on the other hand, submits that even though the manner has not been prescribe the teachers can exercise their option even by simply expressing their intention in writing to continue in service upto the age of 60 years, within a period of three months from the appointed day by the existing employees. 5. As regards the second point, Mr. Choudhury submits that the classification has got reasonable nexus with the class of teachers, inasmuch as. persons who want to continue in service upto the age of 60 years arc not entitled to get pensionary and gratuity benefits, on the other hand, the persons who opting to retire at the age of 58 years are deprived of getting contributory provident fund and the privilege of serving for two years more. Therefore these classes of teachers are different in nature and they are unequal and this unequal cannot be treated as equal. Hence, the classification is reasonable. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the right of option was given only to the existing employees at the time when the Act came into force. Therefore, it cannot be said that there has been violation of equality clause of the Constitution. 6. Regarding the third point, Mr. Hence, the classification is reasonable. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the right of option was given only to the existing employees at the time when the Act came into force. Therefore, it cannot be said that there has been violation of equality clause of the Constitution. 6. Regarding the third point, Mr. Choudhury submits that it is the power of the State Government to frame rules regarding the conditions & service of- its employees as envisaged under Article 309 of the Constitution. 7. Upon hearing the counsel for the parties, it is to be seen whether the contentions raised by Mr. Das has got any substance. Regarding the exercise of option to continue upto 60 years of age, it is true that the Government failed to prescribe the manner, but. then it should not put any teacher in difficulty if he wants to continue to serve up to the age, of 60 years and he may express his desire in any manner. As the Government failed to prescribe the manner the employees could not exercise their option to continue in service beyond 58 years. In my opinion, those teachers who want to continue in service in spite of not exercising their option for want of prescribed manner can be regarded as exercised their option to continue in service beyond 58 years, i.e. upto 60 years and if they actually continue to serve upto that age, they shall be entitled to get all the benefits which they would have received as per the condition of services, prior to the provincialisation. They would also get benefit of contributory provident fund. 8. Regarding the second point about unreasonable classification between two classes of teachers, i.e. those who want to go on superannuation at 58 years of age and those who want to continue upso 60 years, I find this classi­fication, as provided in section 4 (3) of the Act is reasonable, in view of the fact that the person who exercised the option to continue in service upto the age of 60 years is getting two more additional years and contributory provi­dent fund, therefore, they have to forego pensionary and gratuity benefits. On the: other hand, the teachers who retire at the age of 58 years are deprived of contributory provident fund as well as additional two years of service and to compensate this loss the section 4 (3) has been incorporated in the Act for payment of pensionary and gratuity benefits. I donot think, this is an unreasonable classification. Hence the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner fails on this count. 9. The third contention has got some importance. As stated, several Commissions have been appointed by the Government of India for educa­tional reconstruction. The Kothari Commission in 1964 and the Chattopadhya Commission in 1984 recommended 60 years as the age of superannuation of teachers and in some exceptional cases even upto the age of 63 years. As stated, the Central Government and some of the State Governments have already implemented the recommendations and raised the age of supera­nnuation of teachers to 60 years of age, but the State of Assam is yet to consider this recommendation. 10. The State Government is empowered to make Rules under Article309 of the Constitution regarding condition of services of the Government emplo­yees and the age of superannuation is also one of the conditions of the service. Therefore, fixation of age of superannuation is entirely within the dominion of the State Government. It is not for the Court to prescribe the correct age of retirement, but that is a policy function requiring considerable expertise which can properly be done by the State Government or the State Legislature. 11. Various Commissions have recommended for raising the age of superannuation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed this Court that the Central Government and some of the State Governments have already implemeted those recommendations. The learned Additional Government Advocate does not dispute this. In view of the recommendation given ":by those Commissions and such recommendations having been accepted by the Central Government and some of the State Governments, the State of Assam may also look into the matter and do the needful. I do feel the age of superannuation should be raised as per recommendation of those Commissions, because it is only after a teacher acquires several years of teaching experience that he really becomes adapt at his job and the students have to lose the benefit of his experience by reason of early retirement. I do feel the age of superannuation should be raised as per recommendation of those Commissions, because it is only after a teacher acquires several years of teaching experience that he really becomes adapt at his job and the students have to lose the benefit of his experience by reason of early retirement. 1 do hope and trust that the State Government may properly apply its mind and may implement the recommendations of those Commissions, which have been implemented by the Central Government and some of the State Governments as informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. As Mr. Choudhury has submitted the State Government have not prescribed the manner as yet, the Government shall make all endeavour to prescribe the manner as provided in section 4 (4) of the Act, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this judgment. 13. I make it clear that, teachers who are continuing beyond 58 years. shall get the benefit as stated in section 4 (3) of the Rules and they shall be deemed to have exercised their option to continue upto the age of 60 years, Those who ha«e already retired from service after 60 years, shall be paid their does as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this judgment. With the above observation and direction the petition is disposed of No costs. The miscellaneous Case No. 211 of 1993 shall also stand disposed of.