Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. On grievance of superannuating him before the attainment of the age of 58 years by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the petitioner has come up with this writ application for a direction to quash the impugned order contained in Annexure-4. 2. This Annexure-4 has been parsed on the basis of a Government direction given by Annexure-1, to the effect that the employees under the Municipality or other Government Undertakings who have completed 40 years of services should be made to superannuate. According to the petitioner, he entered in the service at the age of 16 years and as such although he served for 40 years at Dhanbad Municipality, he is. yet to attain the age of superannuation and as such there being no Rule for retirement before the age of superannuation without any disciplinary proceedings, the Annexure 4 is bad in the eye of law. 3. Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Rules provides the age of superannuation of the Government employees of the State as 58 years and this Rule has been adopted in the Municipal Acts and Rules by S.O. No. 956 in the year 1977 and as such according to the petitioner, when there is no provision for compulsory retirement before the age of superannuation of 58 years, Annexure-4 is totally illegal and inoperative. 4. Mr. A.K. Sinha, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that Government notification or any bye-laws cannot supersede statutory provisions and in support of the same, he has referred to the decision of Apex Court as reported in A.I.R. 1993 S.C. Page-442 and also -- . Mr. Sinha further submitted that the present case is totally covered by the decision of a Division Bench of-this Court as reported in 1995 (1) PUR, 183 (Mokhtar Ahmad V/s. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.). In that case, the petitioner was an employee of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and on the basis of same Government Notification, he was made to retire before the completion, of age of 58 years on completion of 40 years of service. In that case, the petitioner was an employee of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and on the basis of same Government Notification, he was made to retire before the completion, of age of 58 years on completion of 40 years of service. It was observed by the Division Bench in that case that the Notification was issued on the assumption that a person must have been gained with employment at the minimum age of 18 years and as such after completion of 40 years of service, he must have attained the age of 58 years. But, under the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation Rules, there was no provision as to the cut off year regarding the entry into the services and as such it was held that the notion and direction on which the Government notification was issued had no bearing in respect of the B.S.R.T.C. employees. It was held that the stand of the Corporation was not based on legal position as no Rules or Provisions were there in the B.S.R.T.C. Acts and Rules regarding gaining-of employment at the minimum age of 18 years only. 5. In the present case, the position is totally different. It is true that there was no provision of Pension, Gratuity on superannuation with cut-off year under the Amalgamated Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 and as such for the purpose of maintaining parity between the State Government employees and that of other undertakings, Bihar Municipal Act adopted Rules 73 of the Bihar State Services Rules as mentioned above. But that adoption has been made only in the year 1977 and as such when the Annexure-4 was passed then the age of superannuation was 58 years and prior to 1977 there was no Rule regarding the cut-off year or the minimum age as to when a person can gain employment in the Municipality. 6. Rule 73 has provided-cut-off year as 18 years of minimum age for entering into the services but the contention of Mr. A.K. Sinha is not totally correct. The amalgamated Bihar mid Orissa Municipal Act was in force when the petitioner entered in the services and under Sec. 42 (1)(a), it was specifically mentioned as per Rule 4(b) to the following effect: No officer or servant of the Commissioner shall be appointed unless he is above 18 years and below 25 years of age on the date of appointment. Thus on the date of entry of the service of the petitioner, the minimum age was 18 years, but according to petitioner his age as per Service Book was 61 years at the time of gaining of service in the Dhanbad Municipality and in that admitted position, he was made to enter into services and hence this cannot be raised at this stage that he should retire after completion of 40 years of service on the assumption of his entry into the service at the age of 18 years. 7 In that sense, the present case is factually different from that of the reported case of the Division Bench of this Court as mentioned above. Here, there was cut off/minimum age given under the Municipal Act and Rules at the time of entry of the services of the petitioner. In that sense when the petitioner entered into the services at the age of minority, his appointment can be said to be illegal on the face of ;t as the Rules were mandatory, but after 40 years, it world be difficult and against natural justice to declare the petitioners service as illegal under the Dhanbad Municipality and he should not be thrown out from the services without any benefit finding it to be illegal. It is true that Government notification etc. or bye-laws cannot take away the statutory right conferred on the employees to have service up to the age of 58 years but that must be subject to the legality of his entering into the service at the minimum age of 18 years. Generally, 30/33 years are considered as the maximum span of services under the Bihar Pension Rules. The maximum span is considered as 30 years. In some other States, it is 33 years and in Central Services also it is 33 years. But, by the Government Notification as questioned in the present writ, the maximum span is stretching to 40 years so that there may not be any illegality perpetuated in superannuating a person from services. The maximum span is considered as 30 years. In some other States, it is 33 years and in Central Services also it is 33 years. But, by the Government Notification as questioned in the present writ, the maximum span is stretching to 40 years so that there may not be any illegality perpetuated in superannuating a person from services. Moreover, statutory right of entering into a service at the age of 18 years cannot be relaxed allowing a person to join at the age of minority when he has not completed the age of 18 years and as such it was rightly assumed to the effect that the person who had served for 40 years must have joined in the services at the minimum age of 18 years. Moreover, if such relaxation is allowed without any Statutory rights to give benefit of gaining services even not attaining the age of 18 years then there will be other difficulties and a person if employed at the age of 14 years or less the employer may be penalised under the Child Labour (Prohibition arid Regulation) Act, 1986. 8. Thus, I find that the present case totally cannot be differentiated from the decision of the Division Bench of this High Court as reported above. There also the Division Bench observed that when there was no minimum age fixed under the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation Rules then the employees of B.S.R.T.C. cannot be made to retire before he attains the age of 58 years. But, here in the present case, the minimum age was fixed by Statutes at the time of entry of the services of the petitioner and he is bound by the same. In that sense, considering that the petitioner has rendered 40 years of services, it was well assumed that he had attained the age of superannuation and as such he was made to retire after completion of 40 years of services. 9. I do not find any illegality committed by the respondents in superannuating the petitioner on the basis of the Government Notification as mentioned above. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed, but no order as to costs.