Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 31.5.98, contained in ANNEXURE.2 to this writ petition, by which the petitioner was given retirement with effect from 31.5.98 on reaching the age of superannuation. (2). The petitioners grievance is that he was born on 1.6.1940 and he would attain the age of 58 years only on 1.6.1998. It has further been submitted that if he retires on 1.6.98, he would be allowed to work upto 30.6.98 under the Rules and if it is so, the order issued by the State Government on 27.6.98, extending the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years, will confer some right/benefit upon the petitioner. Thus, a prayer has been made for quashing the order Annexure 2 dated 31.5.98 and he be allowed to work for two years more. (3). Mrs. R.R Kanwar, learned Assistant Government Advocate was directed to appear for the State of Rajasthan. She has vehemently opposed the petition on the ground that the date, on which an employee is born, is to be included while counting the period of superannuation. (4). It is a matter of common knowledge that any person, whose date of birth is 2nd July, does not work on that day and he retires on 1st July. This issue has been considered by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in various cases, viz., Siddheshwari Kumari Srivastava vs. State of U.P. (1), and subsequently by another Division Bench in Ram Laxman Pandey vs. Agra University (2); and Vijay Narain Singh vs. State of U.P. (3). In all these cases, the the Division Benches of Allahabad High Court have categorically held that the date, on which an employee is born, has to be included for calculation and determining the exact date of superannuation and it cannot be excluded and, thus there is no force in the contention raised by petitioner. (5). Mr. Vinay Jain has stated that the judgments of the Allahabad High Court are not binding on this court. Mrs. R.R Kanwar urged that the issue involved here in is not a question of law but requires an arithmatical calculation and on that issue the judgments are sound and valid and based on good reasons. Moreover, the judgments of the other High Courts have persuasive force. (6). Mrs. R.R Kanwar urged that the issue involved here in is not a question of law but requires an arithmatical calculation and on that issue the judgments are sound and valid and based on good reasons. Moreover, the judgments of the other High Courts have persuasive force. (6). Even if in a given case, where an employee reaches the age of superannuation after completing the age of 58 years and is allowed to work beyond that particular date, i.e., for the last date of the month, or in case of an educational ins- titution, till the end of the academic session, as per the Rules/Circular/Government Orders, if any, it amounts to an extension to the services of an employee for the administrative reasons. Such an extension is granted on administrative exigencies and in case of educational institutions, for the welfare of the students. Such an extension does not create any legal right for the petitioner. Even if law is changed after reaching the age of superannuation but during the period of extension, it would not confer any benefit on the employee. (7). In this view of the matter, the petition has no force and it is accordingly dismissed.