D. K. SETH, J. The petitioner was ap pointed as work agent in the Public Works Department, in the State of Uttar Pradesh on 27-5-1960 in the Pay Scale of Rs. 55-65/ -. Subsequently, it is alleged that he was posted as Work Supervisor with effect from March 1974 in the Pay Scale of Rs. 330-495/. 2. Sri J. K. Tewari, learned counsel, holding brief of Sri Shashi Nandan, con tends that he continued in the said post of Work Supervisor and, therefore, by reason of Rule 56 (a) Proviso of Financial Hand Book the petitioner is eligible to continue till the age of 60 years on the basis of amendment incorporated on 8th July, 1987 in the said Rule. 3. Sri Parihar learned Standing coun sel on the other hand contends that the petitioner was in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/- in the year 1986 and he had retired on the said scale. Therefore he cannot claim to continue till the age of 60 years. Learned Standing counsel has relied on the relevant Rules and Circular governing the service of work charge employees. 4. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties. Sri Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on various decisions, to which reference will be made at a later stage. Sri Tiwari, con tends that since the petitioner continued on the same post which was a Group d post prior to 1985 even if the scale is revised or changed, the petitioner would still remain Class-IV employee, having been appointed prior to 5-11-1985 and, therefore, eligible to retire only on attain ment of the age of sixty years. Rule 56 (a) provides that all employees are to retire on attainment of 58 years of age but those persons who have been appointed prior to 5 -11-1985 and holding Group-D post, in that event he would be retiring on attain ment of 60 years of age. The said proviso to Rule 56 (a) is also qualified by explanation which provides that the above proviso will be applicable only in cases where there has been no change in the status or upgrada-tion after 27-2-1982. 5. Therefore, it is necessary in order to determine as to whether the proviso to Rule 56 (a) is applicable in the case of the petitioner. 5. Therefore, it is necessary in order to determine as to whether the proviso to Rule 56 (a) is applicable in the case of the petitioner. If the petitioner holds Group-D post in that event he would be eligible to retire on attainment of 60 years of age. Relying on the definition of Group-D post learned counsel for the petitioner con tends that if minimum of pay scale is less than Rs. 354/- in that event the person is to be treated as holding Group- D post. Ac cording to him prior to 5-11-1985 he was in the pay scale of Rs. 330-495/ -. Therefore, according to him he was holding the Post within the purview of Group-D post, namely, the basic pay of the petitioner then in the said scale was less than Rs. 354/. 6. Learned Standing Counsel has relied on the work charge Establishment Rules in which Chapter-10 provides for retirement, pension and gratuity. The said Chapter deals with the work charge employees. The notification printed in the said chapter is dated 11-5-1984. The said notification provides that, "no work charge employee shall remain in service, ordinarily after attaining the age of super annuation, as fixed for equivalent post in the regular establishment, but in some es tablishment it is noted that despite cross ing superannuating age some employee were continued in service. Therefore, it was decided that the services of such employees are to be terminated on the basis of prescribed age of superannuation for which categorisation of the employees have been prescribed. In Clause (1) it is provided that those employees who are placed in the Pay Scale of Rs. 305-390/-would be retired at the age of sixty years and in Clause (2) it is provided that all other employees excepting in the scale of Rs. 305-390/- would be retiring at the age of 58 years. The petitioner being work charged employee is governed by the said rule. The petitioner was placed in the Pay Scale of Rs. 330-495/- before 5-11-1985, which is an admitted case of the petitioner, in asmuch as he was placed in the said scale as has been stated in Para-3 of the writ petition in 1974. Therefore on 5-11-1982 the petitioner having not been in the Pay scale of Rs. 305-390/- he comes within Clause (2) of the said notification dated 5-11-1984. 330-495/- before 5-11-1985, which is an admitted case of the petitioner, in asmuch as he was placed in the said scale as has been stated in Para-3 of the writ petition in 1974. Therefore on 5-11-1982 the petitioner having not been in the Pay scale of Rs. 305-390/- he comes within Clause (2) of the said notification dated 5-11-1984. Since this notification is meant specifically for work charge employees specifying the scale, therefore, it cannot be said that by reason of the fact that the petitioner had been working as work su pervisor which is Group d Post, he is eligible to retire on attaining the age of sixty years. 7. Thus again the learned Standing counsel has disputed that the post of work supervisor is Group-D post. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the job of work supervisor is to supervise the work of labours. Learned Standing coun sel, therefore, contends that if the job of work supervisor is that of supervising the work of labours it can never be Group-D post. Whether it is Group-D post or not, Is not relevant for our purpose to decide the controversy, since it is the question as to the age of retirement. In view of notifica tion dated 11-5-1984 unless a person is in the Scale of Rs. 305-390 being a work charge employee, he cannot claim benefit of retirement on attaintment of the age of sixty years. The petitioner has also ad-mitted in para-7 of the writ petition that his Pay was fixed at Rs. 950-450q/- in the year 1986. Sri Parihar, learned Standing counsel has relied on the notification dated 14-11-1996 relating to work charge employees. By the said notification super seding all other notifications the date of retirement has been prescribed on the basis of scale of pay, as mentioned therein. In the said notification it has been provided in Clause (1) that those who are in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940/- or in the Pay Scale of Rs. 775-1025/- or in the scale of Rs. 825-2000 and were appointed before 5-11-1985 would be retiring at the age of sixtyyears. But one who is in thesaid scale if appointed after 5-11- 1985 would be retiring on attaining the age of 58 years. In clause (2) it has been further provided that who are in the Pay Scale of Rs. 775-1025/- or in the scale of Rs. 825-2000 and were appointed before 5-11-1985 would be retiring at the age of sixtyyears. But one who is in thesaid scale if appointed after 5-11- 1985 would be retiring on attaining the age of 58 years. In clause (2) it has been further provided that who are in the Pay Scale of Rs. 950-1500/- they shall be retiring on attainment of the age of 58 years. Thus it appears that so far as the persons holding the Pay Scale of Rs. 950-1500/- are due to retire on attain ing the age of 58 years irrespective of the fact whether they were appointed prior to 5-11-1985 or after 5- 11-1985. Admittedly, the petitioner had been in the Pay Scale of Rs. 945-1500/- since the year 1986, therefore, he is covered by the said notification dated 14-11-1996 by which the persons in such scale would be eligible for retirement on attaining the age of 58 years irrespective of the date of their appointment. 8. In that view of the matter the proviso to Rule 56 (a) is qualified to the extent as prescribed in the notifications dated 11-5-1984 and 14-11-1996 respec tively so far as the work-charge employees are concerned. Even if the petitioner claims that he was continuing in the same post, which is Group-D post even though by reason of explanation the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner can not be accepted because the scale of the same post has been upgraded by reason of granting him the scale of Rs. 950-1500/-and as such proviso become inapplicable by reason of such up gradation. By a notification dated 2-7-1996 the Govern ment has notified that in respect of work charge employee the retirement age is to be determined on the basis of notification dated 11-5-1984 read with the decision of this Court dated 18-4-1996 in Special Ap peal No. 238 of 1993, Poor an Singh v. State of U. P and others. We have already seen that by notification dated 11-5-1984 only those persons who were placed in the scale of Rs. 305-390, are to be retired on attain ing the age of sixty years. In the said Spe cial Appeal No. 238 of 1993, it was held on the basis of the said notification dated 11-5-1984 that only those persons who are in the Pay scale of Rs. 305-390, are to be retired on attain ing the age of sixty years. In the said Spe cial Appeal No. 238 of 1993, it was held on the basis of the said notification dated 11-5-1984 that only those persons who are in the Pay scale of Rs. 305-390/- are to be retired on attaining the age of sixty years and others will be retired on attaining the age of 58 years. In compliance of the said order dated 18-4-1996 notification dated 14-11-1996 has since been issued after having quoted relevant direction in the notification itself. Thus the said notifica tion appears to be in consonance with the decision in the said Special Appeal No. 238 of 1993. Thus the said notification can not be said to be bad in law, in any manner and cannot be questioned unless and until the ratio decided in the said Special Ap peal No. 238 of 1993 is overruled. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to urge placing reliance on various notifications that the petitioner had been working in the same post and that his na ture of work was that of Group-D employees and, therefore, he is eligible to retire on attaining the age of sixty years. He relied on the decision in the case of Ram Tej Pathak v. State of U. P. and others, (1994) 1 UPLBEC 593; wherein it was held that if a person is in Group-D post prior to the cut off date in that event the age of retirement of such perbons would be sixty years and not fifty eight years, in termsof the Government order dated 30- 1-1993. In the said case the petitioner was Tube-well operator and was not work charge employee i. e. one of the distin guishing feature, apart from the facts that in the present case by notification dated 11- 5-1994 the scale was mentioned, for which sixty years of age of superannuation was prescribed which was not under con sideration in the said judgment. Thus the ratio decided in the said case cannot be attracted in view of particular facts and circumstances of present one. Thus the ratio decided in the said case cannot be attracted in view of particular facts and circumstances of present one. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies in the case of All India Judges Association v. Union of India and others, (1991) (2) UPLBEC 1387; in support of his conten tion that the nature of work done by the employee is the relevant consideration for fixation of age of retirement. There is no specific provision a like notification dated 11-5-1984 which specifically prescribed that the persons in the scale of Rs. 305-390/- would be entitled to retire on attain ing the age of sixty years, was under con sideration. The said retirement was not fixed by the notification dated 11-5-1984 on the basis of nature of work but on the basis of Pay scale. Therefore the ratio decided in the said case namely All India Judges Association (supra) cannot be of any help to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. Rehance was placed on the decision in the case of Sobhnath Dubey v. State of U. P. and others, (1989) (1) UPLBEC 797; on behalf of the petitioner, but the said judgment has also not referred to the notification dated 11-5-1984, neither it was mentioned that the case was related to the work charge employee. Therefore, the ratio decided in the said case also cannot be attracted, in the present facts and circumstances of the case. The decision in the case of M. P Pradhan v. Union of India, (1991) (1) UPLBEC 454 was cited next. But the said case also does not help the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in asmuch as consideration there was as to the date of entry in service. Therefore it was held that the persons who had entered as Appren tice, was to be treated as to have entered the service on the date of entry into service on apprentice and by reason of the petitioner having entered in service prior to the cut off date on apprentice he was given the benefit of retirement on attain ing the age of sixty years. But in the said case the facts and circumstances which are involved herein namely in respect of work charge employees as well as notification dated 11-5-1984 being not the subject-matter of consideration. But in the said case the facts and circumstances which are involved herein namely in respect of work charge employees as well as notification dated 11-5-1984 being not the subject-matter of consideration. The said judg ment has not referred to or dealt with the notification dated 11-5-1984 not it was found that the petitioner"therein was work charge employee. Therefore the said decision also does not help the petitioner. The decision in the case of Orissa Electri cal Union v. State of Orissa, (1956) (II) SCC 240 as next been cited. But the said case was altogether different in as much as in the said case Class-IV employees alone were entitled to the benefit of superannuation at the age of sixty years even though performing the same nature of work, but fitted in Class-Ill and upward posts were eligible to retire on attaining the age of 58 years. In the said case it was sought to be urged that there was conflict between the decision in the case of State of Orissa v. Charanmohanty, (1995) 1 SCC 470 and in Dutta v. State of Orissa, 1996 (7) SCC 203 . In the said case it was found that there is no conflict between the case of Mohanty and Dutta, referred to above. A case was sought to be made out that those cases required reconsideration that an un reasonable classification has been made in respect of persons namely Electricians Plumbers, Fitters etc. in Class-IV and Class-III posts and thereby prescribing dif ferent date of retirement in respect of same group of persons performing the same na ture of job simply because of fitment in Class-III posts and Class-IV posts. But the Supreme Court had found that the said con tentions had no substance. The categorisa tion was wholly a reasonable Classification. Thus the said case rather help the conten tion of Sri Parihar, learned Standing counsel that the nature of work is not the criterion to be determined and it is the criterion that has been laid down for the purposes of granting certain benefits to certain class of people even if it is on the basis of pay scale alone, as in the case of Orissa Electrical Union (supra), that is the determining factor. 11. 11. For all these reasons, I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the con tentions of Sri Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, who ably argued the case. The writ petition, therefore fails as to costs. 12. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within seven days. Petition dismissed. .