JUDGMENT The writ petitioner is a worker of the Jute Corporation of India. 2. It is a public sector undertaking. He attained the age of 58 on 31.5.98. By a presidential notification dated 13.5.98, the age of the Central Government employees for retirement was raised from 58 to 60. 3. By a directive of the Central Government in relation to Public Sector Enterprises, it was notified on or about 19.5.98 to different Public Sector undertakings that the age of retirement of below board level employees of Central Public Sector Enterprises should be raised from 58 to 60 from the date of implementation by the respective undertakings. 4. On the basis thereof, the Hindusthan Steel Works Construction Ltd. raised the age in their organisation with effect from 29.5.98. This is by way of illustration. 5. Jute Corporation of India, however, held their board meeting on 18.6.98 and after obtaining sanction from the concerned Ministry made publication in July 1998 that they would be giving effect to the raised age from the date of their board meeting i.e. on and from 18.6.98. 6. The writ petitioner has come to Court for relief because he had attained the age of 58 in between the Government circular dated 19.5.98 and its adoption by the Jute Corporation of India on 18.6.98. 7. The respondents have replied that they have done nothing wrong and if they are to follow their own rules, they cannot allow the writ petitioner any relief. 8. Although the respondents are absolutely right in their contention yet, in my opinion, the facts and circumstances of this case are such that the writ petitioner also deserves relief. For hundreds of years, the Courts have granted equitable relief against too hardship and too unfortunate an operation of lapse of time or a strict enforcement of terms as per strict dates. 9. Thus, in my opinion, the writ petition should be allowed; dismissing it would be breach of reasonableness and equity and therefore of Article 14. 10. The writ petitioner should be permitted to work till 31.5.2000 when he shall attain the age of 60. 9. Thus, in my opinion, the writ petition should be allowed; dismissing it would be breach of reasonableness and equity and therefore of Article 14. 10. The writ petitioner should be permitted to work till 31.5.2000 when he shall attain the age of 60. Subject to the aforesaid mandate and declaration, there shall be rule absolute in terms of Prayers A and B and a permanent order of injunction in terms of Prayer D. There shall be no order as to costs because the writ petitioner in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case gets relief without there being any fault on the part of the respondents. Pay benefits and facilities for work be extended to the writ petitioner on the basis of the order and direction above. The writ petitioner be allowed to join his service on the basis of his Advocate's letter. The stay of operation of the order is asked for but refused. Certified xerox copy be made available. Permitted to take gist also.