Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The petitioner who was in the Pondichery Judicial Service, challenged the Notification No.127/1999, dated 210. 1999 on the file of the second respondent and the Notification bearing G.O.Ms.No.29/99-Law, dated 210. 1999 on the file of the third respondent and the Amendment Notification bearing G.O.Ms.No.8/2002-Law (1), dated 4. 2002 on the file of the third respondent, with a further prayer to reinstate him in service and to grant him promotion to the post of District Judge with effect from the date his junior was so promoted. 2. As the case can be disposed of on a short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts except the relevant one. 3. The petitioner who was in the Pondicherry Judicial Service, while functioning as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry, on the recommendation of the High Court, Madras, was compulsorily retired from service in public interest in exercise of powers conferred by F.R.56(j) read with Rules 7 and 26 of the Pondicherry Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 1996, vide Notification G.O.Ms.No.29/99-Law, dated 210. 1999. It was communicated by the Registrar of the High Court, Madras to the petitioner-vide Notification No.127/99, dated 210. 1999. Having compulsorily retired from service, he was also provided with three months pay and allowances in lieu of three months notice under the said Rules. It appears that the petitioner represented and opposed the same on one of the grounds that he attained the age of 58 years on 110. 1999 and thereby, there was no occasion for the respondents to retire him compulsorily under F.R.56(j). He challenged the order before the Supreme Court in W.P. (Civil).No.188/2001, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 5. 2001. The respondents having accepted his submission that he attained 58 years of age on 110. 1999, vide letter No.L-15012/5/2001-Jus., dated 12. 2001, modified the earlier order and the word "compulsorily" was deleted from G.O.Ms.No.29/99-Law, dated 210. 1999 with retrospective effect, thereby, he was treated to have been retired from the Pondicherry Judicial Service. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied on the statement in the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition to suggest that the petitioner disposed of different number of cases almost in every year, thereby, there was no occasion to retire him compulsorily under F.R.56(j). 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied on the statement in the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition to suggest that the petitioner disposed of different number of cases almost in every year, thereby, there was no occasion to retire him compulsorily under F.R.56(j). The orders were also challenged on the ground of non-application of mind, as according to the petitioner, he attained 58 years on 110. 1999, i.e. much prior to the impugned orders issued on 210. 1999. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Pondicherry, while opposing the contentions, relied on Rule 14 of the Pondicherry Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 1996, which reads as follows: "14. Age of superannuation.--Except as otherwise provided for in this rule, every person appointed to the service shall retire from such service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he completes the age of fifty-eight years: Provided that the age of superannuation of a member of the service who is found fit and eligible to continue in the service and his performance is screened by the High Court, shall be extended up to the age of sixty years, and he shall retire from such service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he completes the age of sixty years." 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and noticed the rival contentions and the orders on record. 7. From the pleadings made in the Writ Petition and the submission as made, it may be evident that the main ground taken to assail the orders dated 210. 1999 is that the orders were passed after the retirement of the petitioner. Such a submission cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that Rule 14 of the Pondicherry Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 1996, stipulates retirement from service on the afternoon of last date of the month in which the officer completes the age of 58 years. Even if the argument is accepted that the petitioner attained the age of 58 years as on 110. 1999, for the purpose of retirement, he was to retire on 310. Even if the argument is accepted that the petitioner attained the age of 58 years as on 110. 1999, for the purpose of retirement, he was to retire on 310. 1999 as per Rule 14 and thereby, it was well within the jurisdiction of the respondents to compulsorily retire him from service under F.R.56(j) on the basis of service records and in public interest, as was done in the present case. 8. However, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner actually attained 58 years in the month when the impugned orders were passed and the respondents took lenient view to allow him to retire from service on attaining the age of 58 years under Rule 14, by amending the earlier order, deleting the word "compulsorily" from the orders dated 210. 1999, the petitioner should be obliged to the authorities instead of assailing the same. 9. Now, it is settled law that the compulsory retirement from service in public interest, does not cast stigma. Therefore, the question of giving any opportunity before issuance of such order, does not arise. The order of retirement having been made simpliciter, in fact, the respondents could have asked to refund three months salary, which was paid to him, but having not done so, the petitioner should be thankful to the respondents. 10. There being no merits, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.