JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---Heard Shri B.M. Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondent. 2.This writ petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, dated April 3, 1990, in Complaint U.L.P. No. 1083/1988. The short question which arises in this case is whether the petitioner, who was initially working with the Central Provincial Transport Services, which were taken over by the State Government undertaking, viz. State Road Transport Corporation, with specific assurance that service conditions of the company employees will not be adversely affect, including the condition regarding the age of retirement of employees of the Transport Company, which was 60 years at the relevant time, is entitled to be retired at the age of 60 years. The said question has been directly answered in the decision of the Apex Court, in the case of (S.P. Dubey v. Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and another)1, reported in 1991 S.C.C. (L S) 1010. The Supreme Court has held that Government assurance incorporated in the direction under section 34 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, is binding and hence the retirement age of the employees of the Transport Company shall remain 60 years unaltered to their disadvantage by the Corporation. In this view of the matter, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Consequently, the orders passed by the authorities including the notice/order dated 27th June, 1988 proposing to retire the petitioner on attaining the age of 58 years shall have to be quashed and instead the petitioner is entitled for declaration that he continued in service till he attains the age of 60 years, i.e. upto 30-06-1991. The petitioner, shall, therefore, be entitled for all consequential benefits in view of the aforesaid declaration. 3.Writ petition is, therefore, allowed with costs. Rule is made absolute. Writ petition allowed. -----