Judgment ( 1. ) BY this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for a direction against the respondents to permit them to continue in service up to the age of 62 years with all consequential benefits. ( 2. ) THE facts in brief are these. The petitioners were appointed on 10. 3. 1975 as Upper Division Teachers in the Tribal Department of the State Government. On 4. 6. 1983 they were sent on deputation to another department of Woman and Child Development as Child development Project Officers (CDPOs) under Integrated Child development Scheme (ICDS ). The petitioners were then promoted in their parent department on 5. 8. 1987 to the posts of Lecturer and on 4. 1. 1991 they were further promoted to the posts of Principal. On 31. 8. 1998 the State Government issued a circular by which retirement age of Government teacher was enhanced from 60 to 62 years. Thereafter, the State Government also amended Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules by Madhya Pradesh Act No. 27/1998 with effect from 7. 8. 1998 and enhanced the retirement age of every government teacher to 62 years. The services of petitioners were absorbed in the Department of Woman and Child Development on 22. 9. 1999 on the posts of Assistant Director, Samwarg. On their absorption in the Department of Woman and Child Development they lost their lien in the parent department where they were working as teachers. The petitioners were retired on attaining the age of 60 years according to rules of service applicable to the services in which they had been absorbed and working. Aggrieved by their retirement they have filed the present petition. According to the petitioners, since their lien was retained on the posts of teacher/principal in the parent department for more than 20 years, they fall within the meaning of teacher as explained in Rule 56 and, therefore, the respondents cannot retire them before they attain the age of 62 years. ( 3. ) THE respondents, who are officers of Woman and Child development Department, have denied in their return that the petitioners come within the definition of teacher contained in the explanation to Rule 56. They have also stated that petitioners have no right to continue in service beyond 60 years of age. ( 4. ( 3. ) THE respondents, who are officers of Woman and Child development Department, have denied in their return that the petitioners come within the definition of teacher contained in the explanation to Rule 56. They have also stated that petitioners have no right to continue in service beyond 60 years of age. ( 4. ) TO resolve the controversy, I deem it proper to reproduce the relevant extract of amended Fundamental Rule 56: 56. Age of superannuation (1-a) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), every Government Teacher shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty two years: provided that a Government teacher whose date of birth is the first of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of sixty two years. Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-rule "teacher" means a Government servant by whatever designation called, appointed for the purpose of teaching in Government educational Institution including technical or medical educational institutions, in accordance with the recruitment rules applicable to such appointment and shall also include the teacher who is appointed to an administrative post by promotion or otherwise and who has been engaged in teaching for not less than twenty years provided he holds a lien on a post in the concerned school/collegiate/technical/medical education service. ( 5. ) A bare reading of the above quoted rule, particularly the explanation, clearly indicates that two conditions are essential for a government servant to come within the definition of teacher contained in the explanation to Rule 56. First, he must be engaged in teaching for not less than 20 years and second, he must hold a lien on a post in the education service at the time when the question of retirement arises for consideration or in other words the question regarding the proper age of superannuation comes for application. In the present case none of these conditions are fulfilled. As already stated above, the petitioners were appointed as Upper Division teachers on 10. 3. 1975 and they were sent on deputation as Child development Project Officers on 4. 6. 1983. After 4. 6. 1983 the petitioners have never been engaged in teaching. They were thus engaged in teaching for only eight years. As already stated above, the petitioners were appointed as Upper Division teachers on 10. 3. 1975 and they were sent on deputation as Child development Project Officers on 4. 6. 1983. After 4. 6. 1983 the petitioners have never been engaged in teaching. They were thus engaged in teaching for only eight years. Further petitioners services were absorbed in the department of Woman and Child development on 22. 9. 1999 and they were retired on completing the age of 60 years on 31. 12. 2008, i. e. much after they had lost their lien in the education service. Accordingly, it is not possible to hold that petitioners are entitled for the benefit of the age of retirement of 62 years as permitted by Fundamental Rule 56 for teacher. ( 6. ) IT is noted that despite the retirement of petitioners on 31. 12. 2008 they have been allowed to continue in service pursuant to the interim direction of this Court. It is, therefore, clarified that government will not recover the salary paid to them for the period they have worked after retirement because of the interim order. ( 7. ) THE petition fails and is dismissed. No orders as to costs.