Judgment :- Markandey Katju, CJ. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 07.01.2005 passed in W.P.No.6407 of 1997. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order. 3. The age of superannuation of the appellant was 58 years under the relevant statute, but it appears that the appellant obtained an interim stay order from a learned single Judge of this Court by which he continued till the age of 60 years. 4. We cannot appreciate the interim orders passed by this Court which deviate from the law or which violate the law. Judges must know their limits and act within the law, and must not violate the law. In the present case, the interim order which permitted the petitioner to continue till the age of 60 years was wholly illegal since the age of superannuation is 58 years. Judges cannot create law. It is the Legislature or the appropriate delegate of the Legislature which can amend the age of retirement, but this cannot be done by Judges. As held by this Court in Rama Muthuramalaingam Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, AIR 2005 Mad 1 , Judges must observe judicial restraint, and not encroach into the legislative or executive domain, except in some rare and extreme contingency. Judges can only interpret and implement the law, and not make it. Judges must not become a law into themselves and they must know how to function within their limitations. Then only will they get respect in society. 5. Thus, we are of the opinion that the writ petition was rightly dismissed by the learned single Judge. There is no force in the appeal and it is dismissed. Consequently, connected W.A.M.P.No.1747 of 2005 is also dismissed.