Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. The petitioner is a last grade servant. He has commenced service as last grade servant after 7.4.1970, the date made mention of R.60(b) of Part I K.S.R. The said rule provides that last grade servants commenced service on or before that date and continuing so will be entitled to be in service unit they attain age of 60 years. In the case of others, they have to retire on superannuation on attaining 55 years. Later, amendments were issued, enabling ex-servicemen and similar categories as on the said date appointed in last grade service to continue until 60 years. The petitioner contends that last grade servants form a single class irrespective of the date of entry in service and there cannot be two different yardsticks in the matter of age for superannuation. Such classification with reference to the date 7.4.1970 adopted in R.60(b) Part I K.S.R. is thus violative of Arts.14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that when too many groups like Ex-servicemen etc are given the benefit of continuance until 60 years though their entry in the last grade service later than 7.4.1970, there is no reason to exclude that benefit to other last grade servants. 2. These contentions are without any basis. There was challenge against fixation of the said date in O.P. 9417/91. It was found as follows: "Prior to 7.4.1970, those in last grade could continue in service till they attained the age of 60. With effect from 7.4.1970 those in last grade service were also brought on a par with other Government servants and as a result, they also have to retire at the age of 55. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the date 7.4,1970 has no relevance." Thus, the fixation of the said date was upheld. Further amendment was in respect of Ex-servicemen and persons in Assam Rifle Force etc. also cannot be said to be arbitrary as they were in the respective service which entitle them to be re-employed in last grade service. 2. The challenge was again raised in O.P. No. 8455/96. That was also repelled by my judgment dated 3.6.96. Similar challenge again came up for my consideration in O. P. No. 23347/98. On that occasion also, relying on the judgment in O.P. No. 9417/ 91 and connected cases the challenge was repelled. 2. The challenge was again raised in O.P. No. 8455/96. That was also repelled by my judgment dated 3.6.96. Similar challenge again came up for my consideration in O. P. No. 23347/98. On that occasion also, relying on the judgment in O.P. No. 9417/ 91 and connected cases the challenge was repelled. In such circumstances there arise no question for entertaining fresh challenge. Original Petition therefore fails. Dismissed.