In this writ petition, a prayer has been made by the writ petitioner namely, Birendra Nath Bhuyan, for a direction to the respondents to show cause as to why the office order/letter bearing No. MKB/BK-V/(P2)/72/95-96/132 dated 2nd January, 1997 (Annexure III) issued by the Chief Executive Officer of Meghalaya Khadi and Village Industries Board, should not be revoked and the petitioner should not be allowed to remain in service atleast upto the completion of 60 years of his age by contending inter alia that, he was an employee of the Meghalaya Khadi and Village Industries Board and was working as a Bee Keeping Inspector and posted at Tura and, that initially and originally, he was appointed under the Assam Khadi and Village Industries Board thus serving there at Guwahati as per terms of the Service Rules of Assam Khadi and Village Industries Board which provides for retirement of all employees of the Board ordinarily on completion of the age of 60 years and the said Rules also provides for re-employment of an employee even after completion of 60 years for a period of another one year at a time, subject to medical fitness. 2. Supporting the case of the writ petitioner, Mr SR Sen learned counsel, has drawn my attention to Regulation 34 (c) (4) (i) of there related Rules which provides that "All employees of the Board (other than the honorary workers) shall ordinarily retire on the date of completion of the age of 60 years." As per Regulation 34 (c) (4) (ii), the Board may also re-employ persons aged over 60 years for a period not exceeding one year at a time, subject to medical fitness. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to the related office orders bearing Memo No. KBE. 199/76-77/4 dated Gauhati, the 15th March, 1997 as in Annexure II to the writ petition and submitted, that as many as six staff of the Assam Khadi and Village Industries Board were transferred to Meghalaya Khadi and Village Board with immediate effect from the dates shown against their names and in case of the present writ petitioner, date of transfer had been given effect from 7.2.77 (FN) and the terms and conditions of service of the transferred staff will remain unaltered. 3. According to Mr. 3. According to Mr. SR Sen, the terms and conditions of service of the writ petitioner as reflected in the said office order of 15.3.77 was duly accepted by the Meghalaya Khadi and Village Industries Board and since 7.2.77, the petitioner had rendered his services till 31.3.97 though the petitioner is to serve upto 31.3.99, as per terms and conditions of his services. It is also contended by Mr. Sen that the Govt. of Meghalaya, vide the Meghalaya Adaptation of Laws Order (No.3) (1973) has adopted in clause (c) Assam Acts SI.22 and accordingly, "The Assam Khadi and Village Industries Board Regulation, 1961" were made and the same also stands adopted by Govt. of Meghalaya and as such, the Regulation relating to the conditions of services as provided in the Assam Khadi and Village Industries Board Reugulation, 1961 are applicable to the employees of Meghalaya Khadi and Village Industries Board which is the Regulation 34 (c) (4) (i). 4. It is also submitted that the children of the petitioner are still very young and he has got a large family and in these hard days of gradually increasing cost of living, petitioner should be allowed to remain in service till the completion of 60 years of age. However, the respondents by losing the sight of related office orders of 15.3.77 passed the impugned order of 2.1.97 (Annexure III), thus causing the retirement of the writ petitioner on supreannuation on 31.3.97, after completion of 58 years of age without any justification. 5. Mr. However, the respondents by losing the sight of related office orders of 15.3.77 passed the impugned order of 2.1.97 (Annexure III), thus causing the retirement of the writ petitioner on supreannuation on 31.3.97, after completion of 58 years of age without any justification. 5. Mr. BK Deb Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 contended, that Assam Khadi and Village Industries Board was bifurcated consequent upon reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Assam and, thus the Meghalaya Khadi and Village Industries Board came into existence quite in keeping within the purview of section 64 of the North Eastern Reorganisation Act, 1971, and the services of the writ petitioner was duly placed under the Meghalaya Khadi and Village Industries Board vide notification being No.KBF/99/76-77/4, dated 15.3.77 as Bee Keeping Inspector as in Annexure II and, that the Meghalaya Khadi and Village Industries Board is an autonomous body and it has been following all the Rules, Regulations of the State of Meghalaya regulating the services of the staff employed in the Board and the Board have not framed any rules for regulation of the staff employed under the Board and the Meghalaya Khadi and Village Industries Board has not adopted Service Rules and Pension Rules, etc as that of Assam Khadi and Village Industries Board, and as such the question of super­annuation of the employees at the age of 60 years does not arise. Supporting the case of the respondent No.2, Mr.BK Deb Roy has drawn my attention to FR 57 (a) of the Meghalaya Fundamental Rules and submitted that the date of compulsory retirement of a Govt. servant is the date on which he attains the age of 58 years. 6. Now, this Court is to examine as to whether the writ petitioner has enforceable legal right or legitimate expectation in the instant case. 7. On bare perusal of the document marked Annexure II, ie office order of 15.3.77. it has been revealed that the writ petitioner was transferred to Meghalaya Khadi and Village Industries Board wef 7.2.77 and the terms and conditions of his service will remaing unaltered. At this stage, I hereby recall once again the Regulation 34 (c) (4) (i) which provides, that all the employees of the Board (other than honorary workers) shall ordinarily retire on the date of completion of the age of 60 years. At this stage, I hereby recall once again the Regulation 34 (c) (4) (i) which provides, that all the employees of the Board (other than honorary workers) shall ordinarily retire on the date of completion of the age of 60 years. These terms and conditions of service of the writ petitioner was duly accepted by the Meghalaya Khadi and Village Industries Board and with these terms and conditions of services, the writ petitioner had been rendering services under the respondent No.2. It is true, that under the related FR 57 (a), the date of retirement of a Govt. servant is that on which he attains the age of 58 years and such Govt. servant may also be retained in service after his age of 58 years with the sanction of the State Govt. on public grounds which must be recorded in writing, and proposals for the retention of a Govt. servant after this age should not be made except in very special circumstances. This FR 57 (a) govern the service conditions of a Govt. servant and not for the employees or staffs under the Meghalaya Khadi and Village Industries Board even assuming the Board has been following the same. In my considered view, the writ petitioner has a legitimate expectation of being treated in a particular way by the respondent No.2 in view of the related office order of 15.3.77 as in Annexure II to the writ petition which protected and governed the service conditions of the writ petitioner under the Meghalaya Khadi and Village Industries Board with specific terms and conditions of his services as highlighted and decided in it. At this stage, a reference can be made to decision of the Apex Couret rendered in UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Gyan Devi, reported in (1995) 2 SCC 326, wherein the Apex Court held thus : "In situations where even though a person has no enforceable right yet he is affected or likely to be affected by the order passed by a public authority the Courts have evolved the principle of legitimate expectation. The expression which is said to have originate from the judgment of Lord Denning in Schmidt vs. Secy of the State for Home Affairs is now well established in public law. In Attorney General of Hong Kong vs. Ng. The expression which is said to have originate from the judgment of Lord Denning in Schmidt vs. Secy of the State for Home Affairs is now well established in public law. In Attorney General of Hong Kong vs. Ng. Yuen, Privy Council applied this principle where expectations were 'based upon some statement or undertaking by or on behalf of, the public authority' and observed : "Accordingly 'legitimate expectations' in this context are capable of including expectations which go beyond enfroceable legal rights, provided they have some reasonable basis. A person may have a legitimate expectation of being treated in the certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no legal right in private law to receive such treatment." In another case, namely, Food Corporation in India vs. M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Food Industries, reported in (1993) 1 SCC 71 , the Apex Court held : "that the legitimate expectation becomes an enforceable right in case of failure of the State or its instrumentality to give due weight of it." 8. In the instant case also, the respondents particularly respondent No.2 had failed to give due weight to the afore mentioned office order dated 15.3.77 (Annexure II) to the writ petition, to the prejudice of the writ petitioner thus affecting his service conditions for which, this Court is to issue appropriate writ in the instant case. Accordingly, I direct the respondents particularly respondent No.2, to allow the writ petitioner to serve as Bee Keeping Inspector till he attains the age of superannu­ation on 31.3.99, thus retaining the services of the writ petitioner under Megahlaya Khadi and Village Industries Board Shillong. It is also made clear, that the respondent No.2 shall also afford /pay the arrear salary to the writ petitioner for the period from 1.4.97 till date and the respondent No.2 shall take back the writ petitioner forthwith. 9. For the reason, observations and directions made above, this writ petition is allowed. No cost. 10. It is also made clear, that the respondent No.2 shall also afford /pay the arrear salary to the writ petitioner for the period from 1.4.97 till date and the respondent No.2 shall take back the writ petitioner forthwith. 9. For the reason, observations and directions made above, this writ petition is allowed. No cost. 10. Despite the disposal of this writ petition, I am constrained to keep on record the words and comments of the Chief Executive Officer, Meghalaya Khadi and Village Industries Board, Shillong, the respondent No.2 herein pertaining to sincere services of the writ petitioner made in his office letter bearing No. MKB/ BK.V/(P2)/72/95-96/132 dated 31.3.97 (Annexure VI) which is important and relevant in the instant case and the same is termed as hereunder : “Your sincere and innovative technique of Bee Keeping has brought a new era in the Village Industries Sector of the State. On behalf of the Officers, and Staffs of Meghalaya Khadi and Village Industries Board, we wish you a very happy retired life.”