Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J. :- Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Ajai Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited. This special appeal challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 26.07.2010, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner, claiming the relief of retirement at the age of 60 years instead of 58 years. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner relying upon the un-amended service rules submitted that the appellant was entitled to be continued in service till the age of 60 years, as per clause-27 of the rules applicable in the matter of discharge on superannuation, which reads as under: Discharge on Superannuation "The age of superannuation will be the same as is prescribed by the U.P. State Government for which is employees from time to time. On attaining this age of superannuation, an employee shall be discharged from service of the Corporation. In the case of officers employed on contract, the Board of Directors may waive the age of superannuation with the condition that in no case shall an employee go beyond the age of 60 years in the service of the Corporation. An employee of the Corporation shall be allowed the discretion to retire voluntarily after completing 20 years of continuous service or attaining the age of 50 years which ever is later." The argument is that the age of superannuation of the employees of the Corporation would be 60 years instead of 58 years as the age of retirement of the State Government employees has been enhanced to 60 years. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation has drawn the attention of the Court towards the rules which stood amended and were notified on 8.10.2004, under the orders of the Managing Director of the Corporation. The aforesaid amended Rule 27 provides the age of superannuation as 58 years of the employees of the Corporation. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Awasthi, appearing for the appellant-petitioner assailing the aforesaid action of retiring the appellant-petitioner on attaining the age of 58 years submitted that the aforesaid rule 27 can not be said to be legally amended as the approval of the Board of Directors was never obtained and the State Government has rejected the proposal sent by the Board of Directors for approval in this regard. The aforesaid fact is specifically denied by the counsel for the respondent, who says that once the aforesaid rules has been notified/circulated, the same is binding upon the employees and they do not have any right to continue in service beyond the age of 58 years i.e. on attaining the age of superannuation. The proposal of the amendment of the said rule 27 as it existed prior to the aforesaid amendment was passed by the Board of Directors. This proposed rule was as under: Clause-27 Discharge on Superannuation "(1). An employee shall ordinarily retire at the age of 58 years unless the Board, with the prior approval of the State Government, extends, the period of employment which in no case shall be beyond the age of 60 years. Accordingly, superannuation age for employees of the Corporation will be 58 years with effect from 28.11.2001. (2). Actual date of retirement on attaining the age of superannuation for all employees will be last day of the month in which he will attain the age of superannuation except for such employees whose date of birth is on 1st day of the month and in that case the actual date of retirement on attaining the age of superannuation will be the last date of the previous month on which he is attaining the age of superannuation. (3). The provisions of screening of employees who have attained the age of fifty years as laid down by State Government for Public Sector Undertakings, as amended from time to time subsequently, shall apply to employees of the Corporation. (4).The provisions of Voluntary Retirement Scheme as laid down by State Government for Public Undertakings, as amended from time to time subsequently, shall apply to employees of the Corporation with prior approval of State Government." This prescribes the age of retirement of the employees of the Corporation as 58 years. The Board of Directors forwarded the proposal of amendment in the rule to the State Government vide its letter dated 26.2.2003. The aforesaid letter clearly mentions that the previous rule provided that the age of superannuation will be the same as is prescribed by the U.P. State Government for its employees from time to time. On attaining this age of superannuation, an employee shall be discharged from the services of the Corporation. The aforesaid letter clearly mentions that the previous rule provided that the age of superannuation will be the same as is prescribed by the U.P. State Government for its employees from time to time. On attaining this age of superannuation, an employee shall be discharged from the services of the Corporation. Since the age of superannuation of the employees of the State Government was enhanced to 60 years, therefore, taking all the factors into consideration, the Board resolved that the age of superannuation of the employees of the corporation be 58 years, which was duly approved by the Board of Directors and sent for approval to the State Government. The State Government vide its letter/order dated 18th October, 2003 gave approval to the proposal, requiring the Managing Director to incorporate the following in service Rules: "An employee shall retire at the age of 58 years, unless under exceptional circumstances in the interest of work if it is essential to extend or re-employ the said personnel it can only be done by the Board with prior approval of the Government, and in no case it should extend beyond the age of 60 years." It was thereafter that the aforesaid amended rule was notified/circulated among the employees of the corporation. Under the authority of the Managing Director, the amended rule was incorporated in the service rules also as Rule-27. The plea of the appellant that the State Government has in fact rejected the resolution of the Board of Directors for amending the Rule 27, is not correct. In fact, the proposal/resolution which was approved by the Board of Directors, was approved by the State Government. The State Government has directed that the aforesaid clause be incorporated in the rules in regard to the age of retirement on attaining the age of superannuation. The resolution prescribed the age of superannuation as 58 years and that was also approved by the State Government. In the exceptional circumstances and in the interest of work, if it is essential to extend or re-employ a person, the age of retirement can be extended up to 60 years subject to the approval of the State Government. The rules, once having been notified/circulated after State Government has given its approval, the said rules come into force and they are binding upon the employees. The rules, once having been notified/circulated after State Government has given its approval, the said rules come into force and they are binding upon the employees. The age of retirement having been determined as 58 years by amending the rules, the pre-existing rule loses its significance. The rule as amended is applicable upon all the employees of the corporation, therefore, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge. The special appeal is dismissed. We further direct that the appellant-petitioner shall be paid all the post retiral dues, if they have not yet been paid, expeditiously, say within a maximum period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.