Order Challenge in this writ application is to the order dated 3..9.1997 (Annexure-1), issued under the signature of the respondent No.3, the Regional Chief Forest Conservator, by which a direction was issued for retiring those employees, who have completed 40 years of service; The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 31.10.1997 (Annexure-1/A), issued under the signature of Regional Forest Officer, whereby the petitioner was made to retire from service, pursuant to the impugned order (Annexure-1) of the Regional Chief Forest Conservator. While challenging the aforesaid impugned orders, the petitioner also prays for a direction to the respondents to pay his salary from 31.10.1997, i.e. the date from which he was made to retire, till 28.2.1999, i.e. the date when he had attained the age of superannuation at 58 years. 2. Heard counsel for .the petitioner and counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioner was appointed as forest guard under the services of respondents, on 29.11.1955. He claims that his date of birth was recorded in his service book as 3.2.1941 and according to which, he would have completed his age of superannuation of 58 years, on 30.2.1999. 4. On the basis of the impugned order issued by the Regional Chief Forest Conservator (Annexure-1), the petitioner was made to retire from service upon his completing 40 years of service on 31.10.1997. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner is based upon the service Rules under which, he could have been retired from service only on his' attaining the age of superannuation and not by reference to the number of years of service rendered by him. Assailing the impugned order/circular (Annexure-1) issued by the Respondent No: 3, learned counsel would argue that the Rules under the Service Code which govern the service conditions of the Government servants, do give a right to the employee to continue in service till he attains the age of superannuation and such right cannot the curtailed by any departmental Circular on the plea of it being a Government policy. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel would want to obtain support to his claim from a Division Bench judgment of this Court, passed in the case d Fatik Chandra Dutta vs. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Ors. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel would want to obtain support to his claim from a Division Bench judgment of this Court, passed in the case d Fatik Chandra Dutta vs. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Ors. reported in [ 2005(1) JCR 411 (Jhr.)] [: 2005(1) JLJ 426] and from the Division Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Mokhtar Ahmad vs. B.S.R.T.C. & Anr. reported in 1995(1) PLJR 183 and also from another Division Bench order of this Court, passed in the case of Ranchi University Grade-IV Staff Association & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [ 2005(1) JCR 476 (Jhr.)] [ : 2005(1) JLJR 446 ]. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Supporting the impugned decision for retiring the petitioner after his completing 40 years of service, learned counsel for the respondents would argue that the impugned order (Annexure-1) has been passed by the Regional Chief Forest Conservator (Respondent No.3), on the basis of a policy decision of the State Government in the concerned department. Such policy decision was taken on the premise that the initial appointment of the employee could be made only after his attaining the age of majority i.e. the age of 18 years and considering the age of retirement, as fixed under the service conditions, at 58 years, the employee would be able to complete maximum 40 years of service and not beyond that. 7. Learned counsel explains further, that the petitioner's date of birth, as claimed by him is 3.2.1941. If this date of birth is accepted to be true, then his appointment on 29.11.1955 was at a time when he had not attained the age of 18 years and was yet a minor, even below the age of 15 years. Such appointment has to be considered as void. The petitioner, according to the learned counsel, cannot claim double benefit of about 3 years, which he had gained by entering into service at the age of less than 15 years and also the benefit of extended period up to the age of 58 years. Learned counsel would further argue that the case laws relied upon by the petitioner, are distinguishable on the facts of this case. Learned counsel would further argue that the case laws relied upon by the petitioner, are distinguishable on the facts of this case. Learned counsel explains that the Division Bench judgment in the case of Mokhtar Ahmad (supra) does not appear to have considered the earlier judgment passed on 12.11.1997 in C.W.J.C. No. 11679 of 1996 on the basis of a judgment of the Supreme Court, wherein it has been stated that it is a settled principle of law that contract with the minor is not permissible in law. If the person enters into the Government job at the age of 15 years, such entry is based on a contract which is void. 8. The question which is called for determination is whether the respondents could have retired the petitioner after his completing 40 years of service on the basis of a circular purportedly issued by the State Government, while the Rules provided that the' Government employee shall retire on his attaining the age of retirement at 58 years? 9. From the admitted facts, the petitioner's date of birth, as per his service records, is 3.2.1941. He was inducted in service on 29.11.1955 indicating thereby that he had entered under the Government service at an age of about 15 years. 10. The stand taken by the petitioner is that though under the relevant Rule 54 of the Bihar Service Code and Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code, there is an upper are limit for Government employees, but there no restriction of appointment of persons below the age of 15 years. The petitioner, therefore, is entitled to continue in service up to his age of 58 years, even if he was inducted in the service at the age of 15 years, since there was no restriction for appointment of persons below the age of 13 years. His service condition has to be guided under the provisions of Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code, under which the retirement can be made only by reference to the age at which employees shall retire and not by reference to the number of years rendered by him in service. 11. In the case of Mokhtar Ahmad vs. B.S.R.T.C. & Anr. 11. In the case of Mokhtar Ahmad vs. B.S.R.T.C. & Anr. reported in 1995 (1) PLJR 183, the Division Bench of Patna High Court, while considering a similar situation where the writ petitioner therein, was inducted in service even when he was below the age of 18 years, had observed that there is no statutory bar to the appointment of a person below the age of 18 years and had proceeded to direct the respondents to allow the benefit of the age of 58 years for the retirement of the writ petitioner. 12. In the case of Mantu vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. reported in [ 2001 (1) JLJR 117 ] and also in the case of Kalanand Jha VS. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in [ 2001 (2) JLJR 297 ], this Court, upon considering the provisions of Rule 54 and Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code and also Rule 57 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 and finding that no minimum age was prescribed at the time of appointment under Rule 54 of the Bihar Service Code, and also considering the fact that the age of superannuation, prescribed under Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code was 58 years, had observed that Rule 57 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, does suggest that there is a provision to appoint a person on the Government job even at the age of 15 years. On the basis of aforesaid observations, this Court has held that the Government employee cannot be superannuated on the ground that he had completed 40 years of service. 13. In a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of M/s BCCL vs. Roopchand Mahto [LPA No. 691 of 2001], while considering identical facts of the case, has observed as follows:- "Undoubtedly the writ petitioner's recorded date of birth is 1943 and on that recording, he could not be superannuated on 5.9.2000. The fact that he has obtained employment in 1959 when he was less than 18 years, cannot alter the situation as far as his actual age is concerned. It is his Fight to serve till he reaches the age of superannuation. The fact that he has obtained employment in 1959 when he was less than 18 years, cannot alter the situation as far as his actual age is concerned. It is his Fight to serve till he reaches the age of superannuation. Whether in 1959, there was any provision that a person below 18 years would not be given a job in the Mines, is not at all relevant because as on date what is utmost relevance is the actual age of the writ petitioner because that would determine the date of his superannuation." 14. In the case of Fatik Chandra Dutta vs. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. (supra) a Division Bench of this Court, relying upon the Division Bench judgment passed in Mokhtar Ahmad case (supra) and the Division Bench judgment in the case of M/s BCCL vs. Roopchand Mahto (supra), has also concluded that in absence of fixation of any minimum age for entering in the Government service, the mere fact that the employee had entered in the service at an age below 18 years, in itself will not disentitle him of his right of claiming retirement only upon his attaining the age of 58 years, as laid down under the Rules. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents would want to distinguish Mokhtar Ahmad's case (supra) with the case of petitioner on the ground that the case of Mokhtar Ahmad, no discussion was made on the settled principle of law that a contract with the minor is not permissible in law and where the person enters into the Government job at the age below 18 years, such entry is based on a contract which is void. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents would also seek support from the Division Bench judgment of this. Court rendered in the' case of Shri Raja Ram Sharma vs. Ranchi Municipal Corporation, reported in [ 2004(2) JLJR 1 ] and would 8.rgue that upon considering the fact that the employee had entered in the service at an age below 18 years, the order retiring 'him on completion of 40 years of service was upheld as correct. 17. Court rendered in the' case of Shri Raja Ram Sharma vs. Ranchi Municipal Corporation, reported in [ 2004(2) JLJR 1 ] and would 8.rgue that upon considering the fact that the employee had entered in the service at an age below 18 years, the order retiring 'him on completion of 40 years of service was upheld as correct. 17. The case of Shri Raja Ram Sharma is distinguishable from the facts of the present case, in view of the fact that in the said case minimum age of 18 years was specifically prescribed under the Rules, when the employee was appointed under Ranchi Municipal Corporation whereas, in the present case, the respondents have not produced any such Rule which prescribes a minimum age for appointment. 18. Likewise, the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Kishore Ojha vs. B.S.E.B. & Ors. [C.W.J.C. No. 2837 of 1999], relied upon by the counsel for respondents, is also distinguishable from the-facts of the present case. In the said case, the workman was made to retire from service on completion of 40 years of service, though he had not attained the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. It was observed by the. court that the statutory Regulations, framed under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, notified on 9th September, 1997, laid down that a workman of Electricity Board, who had completed 42 years of service under the Board or had attained the age of 60 years, whichever is earlier, shall retire. No such Rule or guideline has been produced for application in the present case of the petitioner to mandate that an employee/ workman under the respondent State Government, will retire on completion of 40 years of service or attaining the age of 60 years, whichever is earlier. 19. The other judgments referred to and relied upon by the counsel for the respondents are the Single Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in Baidyanath Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [C.W.J.C. No. 4372 of 2002], the judgment rendered in the case of Lala Awadhesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar [C.W.J.C. No. 11679 of 1996] and the judgment in the case of Tribeni Singh vs. State of Bihar [C.W.J.C. No. 5790 of 1998]. 20. [C.W.J.C. No. 4372 of 2002], the judgment rendered in the case of Lala Awadhesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar [C.W.J.C. No. 11679 of 1996] and the judgment in the case of Tribeni Singh vs. State of Bihar [C.W.J.C. No. 5790 of 1998]. 20. In all these three judgments, while considering a similar issue where the employee was inducted in service at an age below 18 years, the Court had upheld the retirement of the concerned employees on their completing 40 years of service, irrespective of the fact that they had not attained the age of superannuation as stipulated under the service Rules. The Court, in Baidyanath Singh's case (supra) had observed that even though, no minimum age was fixed under the Rules, yet, in view of the provisions contained in Article 24 of the Constitution of India which, restrains the appointment of the person less than 14 years of age, therefore, even in absence of any specific Rules, a minor cannot be appointed in Government service. While making the above observations, the Court had distinguished the case of Mokhtar Ahmad (supra), by observing the distinguishing feature, namely, that the petitioner in that case was appointed in the Transport Department, in recognition of his proficiency as a Football player. None of the referred cases would, in my opinion, apply to the facts of the present case. Whereas in the present case, reliance has been placed by the petitioner on the provisions or Rules 54 and 57 of the Bihar Service Code, which does not prescribe any minimum age at the time of appointment and on the contrary, prescribes 58 years as the. age of retirement and furthermore, Rule 57 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 suggests that there is a provision to appoint even at the age of 16 years. These aspects were not placed for consideration before the Court nor were decided upon in any of the above referred' judgments. 21. In a recent Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ranchi University tirade-IV Staff Association & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra), a similar issue came up for consideration where employees of the University were made to prematurely retire on their completion of 42 years of service., although the statutory Rules prescribed 60 years as the age of superannuation. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra), a similar issue came up for consideration where employees of the University were made to prematurely retire on their completion of 42 years of service., although the statutory Rules prescribed 60 years as the age of superannuation. The Court, while quashing the order of premature retirement, has observed that there being no alternative period of service prescribed for the purpose of retirement, the employees have a right to continue up to the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. 22. It is also to be noted in the instant case that no dispute was ever raised by the respondents in respect of any illegality in the petitioner's appointment in service at the age below 18 years nor any issue raised on the ground that such a contract of appointment with a minor was void. On the contrary, while accepting the appointment as valid, he was allowed to continue in service for 40 years thereafter. The respondents cannot be allowed to raise any dispute at this stage in respect of the legality of the petitioner's initial appointment. 23. For the reasons aforesaid, I hold that both the impugned orders (Annexure-1 and Annexure-1/A), being violative of the statutory provisions of law under Rule 54 and Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code, are illegal and the same are accordingly, hereby quashed. 24. In the result, this writ application is allowed. The respondents shall treat the petitioner to have continued in service, till the date of his attaining the age of superannuation and give him all the consequential benefits thereof, including the monetary benefits, for such period.