Judgment :- The petitioner was serving as a District Revenue Officer. He filed O.A.No.2649 of 1998 before the Tribunal, seeking for a direction to the respondents to grant him the benefit of retirement age of 60 years as ordered by the Government in G.O.MS.NO.365 P & A.R. (F.R.IV) Department dated 96. 2. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as W.P.No.35815 of 2006. 3. The ground raised by the petitioner was that while the petitioner being a District Revenue Officer also exercise the power of a Sub Divisional Magistrate, he should also be treated on par with the judicial officers. Since the judicial officers have been given the benefit of retirement age as 60 years by the Government, the same benefit should also be extended to the petitioner. 4. This argument of the petitioner overrules two facts. The first was in case of the judicial officers, the Supreme Court vide its judgment in All India Judges Association vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1992 SC 165 has directed the State Government to provide the benefit of retirement of service for judicial officers upto 60 years in case they are found fit. The said benefit was conferred only to the judicial officers and it was stated in the order that this cannot be quoted as a precedent in respect of any other service. The reason weighed with the Supreme Court was that an Advocate who becomes a judicial officer enters the service at a much later age and even if he completes full term of his service, he may not be eligible for full pension. Therefore, taking into account the later entry of service by judicial officers in judicial service, this benefit was conferred specifically by the Supreme Court and that direction was implemented by the State Government. 5. Secondly, the benefit of extension upto 60 years is not available universally to all judicial officers and it has to be done after a review of their work and health by the Full Court of the High Court. 6. After the introduction of the Civil Procedure Code, 1973, the judicial power of the Executive Magistrates have been taken away. They have been conferred with the limited power only as an Executive Magistrate. 6. After the introduction of the Civil Procedure Code, 1973, the judicial power of the Executive Magistrates have been taken away. They have been conferred with the limited power only as an Executive Magistrate. Only because they exercise such powers under C.P.C., a District Revenue Officer cannot label himself as Judicial Officer. 7. Therefore, the attempt made by the petitioner to treat him on par with the judicial officers is not maintainable. 8. In the light of the above, the writ petition is misconceived. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.