JUDGMENT : B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This Writ Petition has been filed for quashing the Order Dated 11.05.2000 (Annex.-1) by which the Petitioner had not been given extension till attaining the age of 60 years and has been retired at the age of 58 years. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the Petitioner joined the Orissa Judicial Service, Class II on 14.1.1981 being selected by the Orissa Public Service Commission in emergency recruitment and appointed as temporary Munsif. Consequently his service was confirmed vide notification dated 18.06.1986. The Petitioner stood promoted in the year 1993 to the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) and vide impugned Order Dated 28.01.2000 he has not been granted further extension and being retired at the age of 58. Hence this Writ Petition. 3. Shri Bhakta Hari Mohanty, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that vide Orissa Government Notification dated 28.10.1995, the age of superannuation of judicial officers was enhanced from 58 to 6.0 years and therefore, Petitioner had a right to continue in service till the age of 60 years. The order so passed retiring him at the age of 58 years is bad. No opportunity of hearing was given to the Petitioner. He had been a very efficient judicial officer. No adverse entry had been made against him throughout his service career. More so, six persons who had earlier been superceded and were refused promotion were accorded extension upto sixty years of age. Therefore, the action of the opposite parties-authorities is mala fide, arbitrary and violative of principle of natural justice. Thus the said order is liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand Mr. Khuntia, Learned Addl. Government Advocate, has submitted that age of retirement of the Judicial Officers at the relevant time was 58 years. In special circumstances, where the officer was worth retaining and had a very good service record and was found to be efficient, could be given further extension of two years. The Petitioner has been retired on attaining the age of 58 years in view of the provision of Rule 71 (a-1) of the Orissa Service Code (hereinafter called 'the Code'). The issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 26th June, 2000 in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. The Petitioner has been retired on attaining the age of 58 years in view of the provision of Rule 71 (a-1) of the Orissa Service Code (hereinafter called 'the Code'). The issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 26th June, 2000 in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 376 of 2000, filed by the Petitioner himself, and as the issue has already been decided by the Apex Court the question of his continuance up to 60 years as a matter of right does not arise. Principles of natural justice are not attracted herein. In case some persons had wrongly been given extension, it cannot be a ground of extending the age of superannuation to the Petitioner also as Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage for negative equality. The petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Admittedly Rule 71 of the Code provides for review of the service record of the officers of the State on attaining a particular age step wise and empowers the competent authority to retire the officer compulsorily whenever the officer falls within the zone of consideration as per the requirement provided under Rule 71 (a-1). However, exception has been carried out that in exceptional circumstances the power of retiring the officer compulsorily may be exercised at any stage in between. Rule 71 (a-1) of the Code reads as under: (a-1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-rule (a) of rule 71, Judicial officer belonging to State Judicial Services, who, in the opinion of the High Court of Orissa, has a potential for continued useful service, shall be retained in service up to the age of 60 years. [Note.- The potential for continued utility shall be assessed and evaluated by appropriate Committee of Judges of the High Court, constituted and headed by the Chief Justice and the valuation shall be made on the basis of the Officer's past record of service, Character Roll, quality of judgements and other relevant matters. The High Court should undertake and complete the exercise in case of an officer about to attain the age of 58 years well within time by following the procedure for compulsory retirement under the service rules applicable to him and give him the benefit of the extended superannuation age from 58 to 60 years only. The High Court should undertake and complete the exercise in case of an officer about to attain the age of 58 years well within time by following the procedure for compulsory retirement under the service rules applicable to him and give him the benefit of the extended superannuation age from 58 to 60 years only. If he is found fit and eligible for continue in service in case he is not found fit and illegible, he shall be compulsorily retired on his attaining the age of 58 years. This exercise should be undertaken well in advance before an officer attains the age of 58 years] Therefore, it is evident that at the relevant time the retirement age had been 58 years. However, in exceptional circumstances, if the Officer is very efficient and has a very good service record, could be given the benefit of extended superannuation age from 58 to 60 years. 7. In the Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 376 of 2000, filed by the Petitioner himself before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Court has explained the scope of observations made by the Apex Court in All India Judges' Association's case and while upholding the validity of Rule 71 (a -1) the Court held as under: In our view, the aforesaid rule is not only in conformity with the decision rendered by this Court in the aforesaid case but also in conformity with the requirement of service jurisprudence. The purpose of increasing the superannuation age for the judicial officers was with an intention to raise the tone and morale of the judicial services as a whole but not to continue the officers who have lost their utility in rendering service to the society.... xxx xxx xxx It is apparent that aforesaid directions of this Court are faithfully incorporated in the aforequoted rule. Therefore, the High Court was fully justified in following the aforesaid rules in evaluating the record of the Petitioner for his continued utility in the judicial service. Further, the aforequoted rule does not straightway extend the age of superannuation at the age of 58 years but it only enables the High Court to retain in service a judicial officer belonging to the State Judicial Services up to the age of 60 years. 8. The ratio of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through Registrar v. Sarnam Singh and Anr. 8. The ratio of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through Registrar v. Sarnam Singh and Anr. AIR 2000 SC 2150 , is not attracted to this case as in the statutory rules applicable therein i.e. D.P. Judicial Officers (Retirement on Superannuation) Rules, 1992 provided the retirement of a judicial officer when he attained the age of 60 years. In the said case, the Supreme Court clarified the law that as the rules itself provided the age of retirement as 60 years, the question of grant of extension of service at the age of 58 years could not arise. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding the case of the Petitioner vide Judgment and Order Dated 26th June, 2000, has decided every issue involved herein except as to whether the High Court had exercised the power of review in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner, thus the case remains limited to that extent only. 10. In the instant case, the Review Committee has considered the case of the Petitioner and made the recommendation that he was not found fit to be granted extension till the age of 60 years. We have also examined the entire service record of the Petitioner for our satisfaction and have placed it before Shri Mohanty, Learned Senior Counsel representing the Petitioner. The adverse entries made therein are as under: 1983- Knowledge of law - poor Not industrious. Avoids work. General reputation - not good. Assessed as a poor officer. 1986 No efficiency to work. Promptness - poor. Out turn -low and disappointed. 1987- Efficiency - to be improved. Promptness - to be improved. 1988- Not industrious. Promptness - to be improved. 1991-92 Rumours about his integrity. 1992- There are lot of rumours about integrity. 1998- Assessed as a poor officer. The Port-folio Judge after inspection made remarks against his integrity and the said remarks were accepted by the Full Court. There has been enquiry against the Petitioner on administrative side particularly in D.P. No. 1 of 2000. Review Committee has made recommendation for his retirement on the basis adverse entries, particularly dealing with his integrity. 11. As the-rule itself provided that retirement age was 58 years and only in exceptional circumstances, an Officer having very good service record and potential for continued useful service could be given extension up to 60 years. Review Committee has made recommendation for his retirement on the basis adverse entries, particularly dealing with his integrity. 11. As the-rule itself provided that retirement age was 58 years and only in exceptional circumstances, an Officer having very good service record and potential for continued useful service could be given extension up to 60 years. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid service record of the Petitioner did not make him entitle for extended period of service after attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years. The report of the Review Committee also reveals that he had not been found fit for grant of extension on the basis of the service record and the adverse entries made therein. 12. Further, this case is not coming under the category of compulsory retirement of an officer on attaining the age of 50, 55 or in exceptional cases compulsorily retiring in between 50 and 55 years of age. The present case has to be decided on the facts of its own and we do not see any cogent reason to interfere with the order impugned as the Petitioner had been retired after attaining the normal age of superannuation and not before that. 13. A Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, being Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 376 of 2000, had also been filed by the Petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the Rule 71 of the Code. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the said provision and refused to entertain the petition on other issues directing him to file the petition before this Court. Therefore, it is neither permissible nor desirable for us to enter into the validity of the said provision as it has already been upheld. The facts of the case do not have any special feature warranting interference by the writ Court. 14. Rule 71 (a-1) of the Code itself provides that even for grant of extension from the age 58 to 60 years, the procedure as applicable in retiring an officer compulsorily would apply. Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. (Vide Baikuntha Nath Das and another Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another, ; Posts and Telegraphs Board and others Vs. C.S.N. Murthy, ; and M.S. Bindra Vs. Union of India and Others, . 15. Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. (Vide Baikuntha Nath Das and another Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another, ; Posts and Telegraphs Board and others Vs. C.S.N. Murthy, ; and M.S. Bindra Vs. Union of India and Others, . 15. Thus we do not find any force in the submission made by Shri Mohanty that order stood vitiated for noncompliance of principle of natural justice. 16. Similarly, the submissions that other similarly situated persons had given extension is of no help to the Petitioner for the reason that, it is the settled legal proposition that Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality. Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envisage for negative equality. Thus, even if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order do not confer any legal right on the Petitioner to get some relief. (Vide Chandigarh Administration and another Vs. Jagjit Singh and another, ; Smt. Sneh Prabha etc. Vs. State of U.P. and Another, ; Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur Vs. Daulat Mal Jain and Others, ; State of Haryana and Others Vs. Ram Kumar Mann, ; M/s. Faridabad Ct. Scan center Vs. D.G. Health Services and others, ; State of Punjab and Others Vs. Dr. Rajeev Sarwal, ; Jalandhar Improvement Trust Vs. Sampuran Singh, ; State of Bihar and Others Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Another, ; Union of India and Others Vs. Rakesh Kumar etc., ; Finance Commissioner (Revenue) v. Gulab Chand and Anr., (2000) 10 SCC 656 ; Yogesh Kumar and Others Vs. Government of NTC, Delhi and Others, ; Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. International Trading Co. and Another, ; and Anand Buttons Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Others, ; K.K. Bhalla Vs. State of M.P. and Others, ; and Maharaj Krishan Bhatt and Another Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others, ). 17. Thus, in view of the above, we are of the view that Petitioner had not been given compulsory retirement, rather had been refused extension of service from the age of 58 to 60 years for the reasons that his service record was not good. After examining the service record, we are of the view that no fault can be found with the decision taken by the Review Committee. 18. After examining the service record, we are of the view that no fault can be found with the decision taken by the Review Committee. 18. Petition is totally misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed