Judgment 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.8.2006, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4871 of 2005, whereby the writ application was allowed quashing the order contained in memo no. 29 dated 22.4.2006 (Annexure-D to the 4th supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-Gaya Municipal Corporation), by which the representation of the petitioner to allow him to remain in service till he attains the age of 60 years, irrespective of the number of years served by him in the Corporation, was rejected. The learned Single Judge while quashing the above held to the effect that the writ petitioner is entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years and further directed for payment of the admissible emoluments for the extended period of service due to the enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. 2. The respondent no. 4, Gaya Municipal Corporation, on being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. The moot question arose for consideration is as to whether on account of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, the writ petitioner is liable to be superannuated on completion of the total period of service of 40 years or is entitled to continue in service for another two years i.e. till he attains the enhanced age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. 4. The respondent-Gaya Municipal Corporation arrived at the decision, as contained in the impugned Memo No. 29 dated 22.4.2006 (Annexure-D) that the total length of service of the writ petitioner cannot be more than 40 years irrespective of the enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years in light of the communication of the State Government in the department of the Urban Development vide letter dated 28.1.2002 (Annexure-A to the 3rd Supplementary Counter Affidavit) addressed to the Purnea Municipality endorsing the copy of the same to other Municipal Corporation/Municipality advising to terminate the employees of the Municipality on completion of 40 years of service while interpreting Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code, the relevant provisions of which are adopted by all the Municipal Corporations including the respondent-Corporation vide State Governments notification dated 1.7.1988 (Annexure-1). 5. 5. The short relevant facts necessitating consideration, although not in dispute, are narrated hereinbelow in order to appreciate the matter in issue under consideration in its correct perspective: The writ petitioner initially challenged the State Governments decision as contained in memo no. 73 dated 2.4.2005 (Annexure-4), whereby the State Government communicated the respondent-Corporation that the decision of the State Government enhancing the age of superannuation of the employees of the State Government from 58 years to 60 years as per memo no. 1500/B(2) dated 24.3.2005 (Annexure-2) is not applicable to the employees of Gaya Municipal Corporation. However, during the pendency of the writ application, on receiving the advise of the State Government vide resolution contained in memo no. 347 dated 11.2.2006 brought on record as Annexure-B to the 3rd supplementary counter affidavit, the respondent-Corporation took a similar decision of enhancing the age of superannuation of its employees from 58 years to 60 years vide resolution of the Board of the Gaya Municipal Corporation dated 22.2.2006 as contained in its memo no. 209 dated 25.3.2006 (Annexure-9 of the petitioners supplementary affidavit). The Corporation while taking such decision of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years with retrospective effect i.e. from 24.3.2005 further decided that the employees retiring between the period 24.3.2005 to 22.2.2006 (date of resolution enhancing the age of superannuation) are not entitled.to receive any emoluments, however, the intervening period, shall not be treated as break in service vide Annexure-9 to the aforesaid supplementary affidavit dated 8.5.2006 fiied by the petitioner. 6. It further appears that after the decision to enhance the age of superannuation of the employees from 58 years to 60 years, the writ petitioner made representation dated 25.3.2006 for allowing the petitioner to rejoin in the service on account of the enhancement of the age of superannuation, as the petitioner had already retired w.e.f. 31.3.2005 on attaining the age of 58 years. The said representation of the petitioner, upon consideration, was rejected and communicated to him vide memo no. The said representation of the petitioner, upon consideration, was rejected and communicated to him vide memo no. 29 dated 22.4.2006, Annexure-D to the 4th supplementary counter affidavt filed on behalf of the respondent-Corporation, informing the writ petitioner that on account of the enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, he has completed 40 years of service on 6.2.2006 as the writ petitioner joined the service on 7.2.1966, and as such, he stood retired on 6.2.2006 in light of the direction/advise of the State Government in its Memo No. 232 dated 28.1.2002, without any break in service, however, as per the aforesaid decision taken, no emoluments shall be paid for the period from 31.3.2005 to 6.2.2006. 7. The writ petitioner, through an amendment application filed before the writ Court, amended the prayer and sought for quashing of the above decision contained in Memo No. 29 dated 22.4.2006 (Annexure-D), which was allowed by the learned Single Judge as per judgment and order under appeal. The respondent-Corporation, on being aggrieved by the above decision and direction of the learned Single Judge, has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 8. In support of the appeal, learned Senior Advocate Sri Vinod Kanth appearing on behalf of the Corporation, in nutshell, submitted to the effect that by enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, the total length of service, which an employee may serve, cannot be more than 40 years in total, an inbuilt legal position emerges while interpreting the provision of Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code prescribing the age of superannuation being 58 years before amendment of the said Rule. As such, an employee entering the service which one could validly enter at the age of 18 years, the maximum length of service one could serve, is 40 years. Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel, the paramount consideration is the total length of service an employee is entitled to serve. The writ petitioner, accordingly, could not serve beyond 6.2.2006, when he completed 40 years of service having entered into the employment of the Corporation on 7.3.1966. The above decision of the respondent-Corporation, according to him, is in conformity with the clarification issued by the State Government in the Urban Development Department vide letter no. The writ petitioner, accordingly, could not serve beyond 6.2.2006, when he completed 40 years of service having entered into the employment of the Corporation on 7.3.1966. The above decision of the respondent-Corporation, according to him, is in conformity with the clarification issued by the State Government in the Urban Development Department vide letter no. 232 dated 28.1.2002 (Annexure-A to the 3rd supplementary affidavit), addressed to the Purnea Municipality endorsing the copy of the same to all Municipal Corporations for necessary action. 9. Learned senior counsel summing up his submissions, submitted to the effect that the decision/direction of the learned single Judge in quashing the memo no. 29 dated 22.4.2006, (Annexure-D), whereby the writ petitioner was informed by the Corporation that he stood retired on 6.2.2006, is illegal and as such, not sustainable in law. The judgment and order under appeal, accordingly, deserves to be set aside. 10. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. Narendra Prasad appearing for the original writ petitioner-respondent herein, supporting the order of the learned Single Judge, submitted that on correct interpretations and on conjoint reading of the provisions of Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code, as well as, the contents of the aforesaid letter no. 232 dated 28.1.2002 (Annexure-A), issued by the State Government addressed to the Purnea Municipality as also the resolution dated 22.2.2006, as contained in Annexure-9 (series), it would appear that after enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, an employee is entitled to continue in service till the date he reaches the age of superannuation, and as such, an employee having entered into the service at the age of 18 years is entitled to serve the maximum period of 42 years i.e. till he attains the age of superannuation. The learned Senior counsel submitted that the writ petitioner was entitled to continue in service till 6.2.2008 and the learned Single Judge has validly allowed the prayer of the writ petitioner. 11. We have heard the submissions of the learned Senior counsel appearing for both parties and have examined the provisions of Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code, perused the relevant decision of the respondent-Corporation, as contained in their resolution dated 22.2.2006 (Annexure-9 series) as also the clarifications issued by the State Government on the subject in question, as contained in its letter dated 28.1.2002 (Annexure-A). We have also examined the Full Bench decision of this court in the case of Ragiawa Narayan Mishra & Ors. vs. The C.E.O., Bihar Rajya Khadigrama Udyog & Ors., reported in 2006(1) P.L.J.R. 401(F.B.). 12. The law has been settled in the aforesaid decision upon examining the relevant provisions of the Bihar Service Code, as aforesaid, that an employee cannot be allowed to continue in service beyond the period of 40 years. As such, an employee who completes 40 years of service or has attained the age of superannuation, whichever is the earlier, deserves to be superannuated as the Rule inbuilts that total length of service cannot be more than 40 years and that is the rational for fixing the entry age of 18 years when a person attains majority under the Indian Majority Act and the age of superannuation of 58 years under the provisions of the Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code. It is apparent that the basic consideration is the total length of service one can serve between the entry point in service and the age of superannuation. Therefore, from the above, it leaves no manner of doubt that an employee is entitled to continue in service after enhancement of age of superannuation, till he attains the age of 60 years or a total length of service of 40 years, whichever occurs first. 13. In the above background, the prayer of the writ petitioner that he is entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years irrespective of his length of service is devoid of any merit, and as such, it must be rejected. 14. In view of the discussions and considerations, as made above, the judgment and order under appeal is set aside. We also accordingly, dismiss the connected writ application. 15. The Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.