JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners for issuance of a writ of prohibition directing the Respondents not to act on the first part of the guidelines issued by the Central Government, contained in letter No. 28/43/2004-SRS, dated 29th March, 2005. Further prayer has been made to allow them to continue in the services of the State till they attain the age of 60 years and to pay them the salary of the intervening period. 2. As the matter relates to determination of age of superannuation involving the interest of a large number of employees, the case was referred by the learned Single Judge to Division Bench for determination of the issue. 3. The question involved in this case is whether the Government servants who were provisionally allocated and posted under the State of Jharkhand and attained the age of 58 years between 26th October, 2004 and 23rd March, 2005 and finally allocated the services under the successor State of Bihar, can be allowed to continue in the service till they attain the age of 60 years. 4. The employees of the erstwhile State of Bihar were guided by Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code, 1952, which prescribes age of superannuation (compulsory retirement) on attaining 58 years of age. After reorganisation of the State since 15th November, 2000, the employees were provisionally allocated the successor State of Bihar or Jharkhand under Sub-section (1) to Section 72 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. The persons who were posted in one or other office falling within the territory of successor State of Bihar or Jharkhand, in absence of a notification of provisional allocation, they were treated to be continuing provisionally under successor State of Bihar or Jharkhand in whose territory such employees were posted. Bihar Service Code, 1952 was adopted by the State of Jharkhand by Notification No. 3/M-7-0/2001-3821/Ranchi dated 19th October, 2001. Rule 73 was subsequently amended by the State of Jharkhand and the age of superannuation was enhanced from 58 years to 60 years by Resolution No. 7/BBP-56/2002-Ka-5826/Ranchi, dated 26th October, 2004. In the meantime, a large number of employees who were working under the State of Jharkhand, their services having been finally allocated under the successor State of Bihar, they challenged the orders of allocation. In the meantime, a large number of employees who were working under the State of Jharkhand, their services having been finally allocated under the successor State of Bihar, they challenged the orders of allocation. Most of them refused to go to the State of Bihar, as the age of superannuation of the employees of State of Bihar was still continuing to be 58 years. It is informed by the counsel for the parties that in pursuance of certain observations made by this Court in one of the case, the matter was subsequently taken up by the Central Government and ultimately, the Government of Bihar also amended the Rule 73 and enhanced the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years by Resolution No. 3A-7-Maha-01/2005-1500 B(2) dated 23rd March, 2005. The employees who were provisionally posted under the State of Bihar and attained 58 years of age superannuated from service. On the other hand, the employees who were posted under the State of Jharkhand like the petitioners and attained the age of 58 years after 26th October, 2004 continued in the services of State of Jharkhand Rule 73 having been amended. In the meantime, the Central Government issued different Notifications under Section 72(2) of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, finally allocating the services to one or other employees under one or other successor State including those who retired in the meantime from State of Bihar on attaining age of 58 years and those who continued in the services of the State of Jharkhand even after attaining age of 58 years. 5. The question arose as to what will happen to the employees who had already attained the age of 58 years between 26th October, 2004 i.e. the date the Rule 73 was amended by the State of Jharkhand and 24th March, 2005, i.e. the date the State of Bihar amended the Rule 73. 6. To resolve the issue, the Central Government issued impugned letter No. 28/43/2004-SRS, dated 29th March, 2005 and communicated the following decision : No. 28/43/2004-SRS Government of India Ministry of Personnel, P.G. and Pensions Department of Personnel and Training ***** Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi, the 29th March, 2005. To The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, The State Advisory Committee, Bihar is in the process of allocation of State Service Personnel between the successor States of Bihar/Jharkhand. To The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, The State Advisory Committee, Bihar is in the process of allocation of State Service Personnel between the successor States of Bihar/Jharkhand. In the meantime, Government of Jharkhand has raised the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years vide their notification dated 26.10.2004 whereas the Govt. of Bihar has raised the age of superannuation for its employees vide its notification on 24.03.2005. Keeping in view the overall situation, the matter has been examined and the undersigned is directed to advise that (a) those personnel who are posted in the State of Jharkhand and have attained the age of 58 years between 26.10.2004 and 23.03.2005 have been allocated to the State of Bihar, will be treated as superannuated on the day of attaining the age of 58 years and they will get their pensionary/retrial benefits from the successor State of Bihar. (b) those personnel who are posted in Bihar and have attained the age of 58 years on or after 26.10.2004 and nave retired but allocated to the successor State of Jharkhand will resume their duty/post in the State of Jharkhand and they will get salary from State of Jharkhand w.e.f. the date of assuming the charge and their service will be counted in continuity for the purpose of pensionary/retrial benefits but they will not get any salary for the period for which they have not worked due to their retirement in the State of Bihar; and (c) all those personnel who have completed 58 years of age on or after 26.10.2004 may be provisionally relieved to the respective successor State as recommended in the Revised Final Allocation List pending their final allocation by the Central Government if no representation has been received against their proposed allocation; It is requested that the action taken in the matter may kindly be intimated to the Central Government immediately. Yours faithfully, Sd/(A.K. Srivastava) Desk Officer Copy to the Chairman, State Advisory Committee, Sichai Awas, 21 Beli Road, Patna for information and necessary action with reference to their letter No. Ra.Pa.Sa. 16/2004/106 dated 25.2.2005. 7. The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor on 19th November, 1977 (1st petitioner) and 6th April, 1980 (2nd petitioner) by the State of Bihar and were posted in the districts of 'Deoghar' and 'Palamau' (at Deltonganj) which now fall within the territory of Jharkhand. 16/2004/106 dated 25.2.2005. 7. The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor on 19th November, 1977 (1st petitioner) and 6th April, 1980 (2nd petitioner) by the State of Bihar and were posted in the districts of 'Deoghar' and 'Palamau' (at Deltonganj) which now fall within the territory of Jharkhand. They continued to function under the State of Jharkhand even after 15th November, 2000 having been provisionally allocated the State of Jharkhand. They attained the age of 58 years on 31st October, 2004 and 31st January, 2005 respectively, but the age of superannuation for the employees of the State of Jharkhand having enhanced to 60 years, they continued in the services of the State of Jharkhand. The problem arose when the Central Government issued Order No. 2(B)/2005 dated 14th February, 2005 in exercise of power conferred under Section 72(2) of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 and finally allocated their services under the State of Bihar w.e.f. 15th November, 2000. The petitioners felt difficulty as the Rule 73 had not been amended by the State of Bihar and if they join the State of Bihar, they may be treated to have superannuated from service. 8. Faced with the aforesaid difficulty, the 2nd petitioner, Krishnadeo Das moved before this Court challenging the order No. 2(B)/2005 dated 14th February, 2005. The case was registered as W.P.(S) No. 1354 of 2005. It was argued on his behalf that if he joins the State of Bihar, he may be treated to have superannuated from service. 9. The case was taken up by this Court on 29th March, 2005 by which date, the State of Bihar also amended Rule 73 and enhanced the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. Having noticed the submissions made by the counsel for the State, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge with following observations: In this writ petition the petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 - the Secretary, Department of Law, State of Jharkhand and the Deputy Commissioner, Daltonganj, not to relieve the petitioner from Jharkhand to Bihar on the post of A.P.P. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has completed age of 58 years on 31st January, 2005 and if he is transferred from Jharkhand to Bihar, he will be retired at once. Counsel for the State of Jharkhand submitted that in Bihar also the age of superannuation has been increased from 58 years to 60 years and, therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner that he will be retired is wholly misconceived. Even after joining in Bihar on the post of A.P.P., the petitioner will continue on the said post till the age of 60 years. In that view of the matter, no direction can be issued to the respondents as prayed for by the petitioner. This writ petition is dismissed. 10. Though before the Court, it was submitted by the counsel for the State that the apprehension of the 2nd petitioner was wholly misconceived and he will continue on the post of A.P.P. under the State of Bihar till he attains the age of 60 years, but his joining was not accepted by the State of Bihar in view of guidelines issued by the Central Government by letter No. 28/43/2004-SRS dated 29th of March, 2005. On the other hand, joining of another similarly situated person, namely, Ramashish Sharma, A.P.P. who also attained 58 years of age in February, 2005 and allocated the State of Bihar, was accepted and he was posted by the Government of Bihar's Notification No. 18th July, 2005. 11. In the case of second petitioner, the writ petition was made infructuous in view of the statement made by the Respondents, but in cases of other employees, in whose favour, interim order has been passed, they have been allowed to continue in the services of the State of Jharkhand even beyond 58 years of age in view of Central Government's letter No. 2004-SRS dated 29th March, 2005. 12. Similar case fell for consideration before this Court in Brahmadeo Prasad Yadav v. State of Jharkhand reported in 2005 (4) J.L.J.R. 185 . Said petitioner and one Sherjahan Khan were made to retire from service on attaining the age of 58 years by S.P., Chatra, even after amendment of Rule 73. Subsequently, Sherjahan Khan was reinstated and allowed to continue upto 60 years of age in view of amended Rule 73 made by Resolution No. 5826 dated 26th October, 2004. Such benefit was not allowed in favour of Brahmadeo Prasad Yadav on the ground that the Advisory Committed recommended his name for allotment under the State of Bihar where age of superannuation has not been amended and was 58 years. Such benefit was not allowed in favour of Brahmadeo Prasad Yadav on the ground that the Advisory Committed recommended his name for allotment under the State of Bihar where age of superannuation has not been amended and was 58 years. The High Court held such action as illegal and ordered to reinstate Brahmadeo Prasad Yadav. 13. Every Institution is bound to frame and follow an uniform rule for superannuating its employees. The employer is under statutory obligation to uniformly apply the provisions of the Acts and Rules to its employees. The Central Government is also supposed to apply the rule of superannuation uniformly to all similarly situated employees. 14. In the case of Raj Soni v. Air Officer Incharge Administration reported in [1990]2SCR412 ., the Supreme Court held, as follows : the age of superannuation cannot be left to the whims of the employer to enable him to retire different employees at a different age. 15. It Could be seen from the guidelines, dated 29th March, 2005 that the Central Government issued two types of directions in respect to employees who attained age of 58 years in between 26th October, 2004 and 23rd March, 2005. Those personnel who were posted in the State of Jharkhand and have attained the age of 58 years between 26th October, 2004 and 23rd March, 2005, get the benefit of amended Rule 73 of State of Jharkhand since 26th October, 2004, having been allocated to the State of Bihar, were treated as superannuated on the day of attaining the age of 58 years. On the other hand, those personnel who were posted in Bihar and had attained the age of 58 years on or after 26th October, 2004 and had actually retired, but they having allocated to the successor State of Jharkhand were allowed to resume their duty/post in the State of Jharkhand after their retirement. The Central Government has failed to show any nexus in making classification amongst two similarly situated personnel in the matter of age of retirement, though the burden was with the Central Government to show the reasonable classification and its nexus with the object of legislation, but it failed to discharge its burden. We, accordingly, hold Clause (a) of paragraph 2' to the guidelines dated 29th March, 2005 as arbitrary, having no nexus with the object to achieve. 16. The employees had no say in the matter of cadre allocation. We, accordingly, hold Clause (a) of paragraph 2' to the guidelines dated 29th March, 2005 as arbitrary, having no nexus with the object to achieve. 16. The employees had no say in the matter of cadre allocation. They were only asked to submit options which were not binding on any of the Government. It is not the case of the respondents that the services of petitioners have been allocated under the State of Bihar on their representations. Allocation has been made taking into consideration the Central Government's guidelines and administrative exigencies. In such a situation, the Respondents cannot suggest two different age of superannuation for similarly situated employees of a common combined cadre/service who attained age of 58 years between 26th October, 2004 and 23rd March, 2005 on the basis of cadre allocation. 17. In the facts and circumstances, we direct the Respondents not to give effect to Clause (a) of paragraph 2' to the guidelines dated 29th March, 2005 and to allow the petitioners to continue in the services of the State of Bihar till they attain the age of 60 years. 18. The State of Bihar is also directed to issue appropriate notification of posting in regard to petitioners, if not yet issued, and pay them the full salary of the intervening period, during which they were forced to remain out of service. The Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, the Secretary, Law Department, Government of Bihar and other competent authority of the State of Bihar, whoever may be, will ensure implementation of this Court's order in its letter and spirit. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order, as to costs. Petition allowed.