Judgment : 1. The Writ Petition is directed against the letter of the First Respondent dated 27.5.1998, seeking for a direction against the Respondents to desist from superannuating the Petitioner from service before attaining the age of 60 years. 2. The Petitioner, being sponsored by the Employment Exchange, was temporarily appointed as Helper Grade-II in Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board by the Staff Selection Committee and posted under the Second Respondent on 19.8.1992, in which post he joined on 24.8.1992. He was given selection grade in Helper Grade-II with effect from 24.8.2002. As per the service regulations framed by the First Respondent, Helper Grade-II which is now called, Office Assistant and Chowkidar/Watchman, was categorized as last grade servant, otherwise called, basis servant. The age of retirement for last grade servants in the First Respondent Board is 60 years. (a) It is the case of the Petitioner that his date of birth is 18.9.1948 and therefore, his age of superannuation should be 30.9.2008. It is stated that the Petitioner was transferred form the Second Respondent’s Office on 20.5.2005 and posted as Office Assistant in the Central Office of the First Respondent, in which post he joined on 1.7.2005. While the Office Assistant post is in the Administrative Office, the post of Helper Grade-II is a available in shop where commercial activity is carried on. (b) While working in the said Central Office, the Petitioner came to know that steps have been taken to retire him on attaining the age of 58 years viz,. on 30.9.2006. Later he came to know that except the posts of Office Assistant and Watchman, all other posts are treated as superior service. The post of Helper Grade-II was also treated as superior post irrespective of scale of pay and the retirement age was fixed at 58 years, as per Board’s Memo dated 7.8.1989. (c) However, it is the case of the Petitioner that such Memo has not been served on the Petitioner. It is the case of the Petitioner that since the Petitioner was employed as basic servant in which post he continued, his service condition cannot be changed by the Respondents. (c) However, it is the case of the Petitioner that such Memo has not been served on the Petitioner. It is the case of the Petitioner that since the Petitioner was employed as basic servant in which post he continued, his service condition cannot be changed by the Respondents. (d) The First Respondent in the impugned letter dated 27.5.1998, copy of which has not been served on the Petitioner, has referred to the Board’s Memo dated 7.8.1989 in which it is stated that only the posts of Office Assistant and Watchman are classified as basic servants and all others are to be treated as superior service irrespective of scale of pay and directed to follow G.O.Ms.157, Personnel Administration and Reforms (FR.III-2) Department, dated 24.6.1994, which relates to earned leave. (e) The said communication is challenged by the Petitioner on the ground that categorizing Helper Grade-II as superior service is arbitrary and opposed to Articles & 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, that the First Respondent is incompetent to unilaterally make such classification without previous sanction of the Government, that Helper Grade-II has to be treated as Office Assistant, that the post of Helper Grade-II is in commercial place and the post of Office Assistant is in administrative side, that both the posts involved same salary and cadre and that therefore, conferring the benefit of 60 years of service for superannuation to the post of Office Assistant and denying the same to the post of Helper Grade-II is arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. 3. In the Counter Affidavit filed by the First Respondent, it is stated that the Petitioner was appointed as Helper Grade-II and as per Rules, the minimum qualification for the post of Helper Grade-II is SSLC (passed) and the qualification of the Petitioner is P.U.C. passed. It is stated that the posts of Office Assistant, Watchman and Chowkidar are alone classified as last grade service and the post of Helper Grade-II is higher than the same. It is stated that as per Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board’s Service Regulations approved by the Government in G.O.Ms. It is stated that the posts of Office Assistant, Watchman and Chowkidar are alone classified as last grade service and the post of Helper Grade-II is higher than the same. It is stated that as per Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board’s Service Regulations approved by the Government in G.O.Ms. No.147, Handlooms Handicraft Textile and Khadi Department, dated 15.7.1989, guidelines were issued regarding classification of posts such as Office Assistant, Watchman, Chowkidar and Helper Grade-II and as per the said regulations, Helper Grade-II is a superior service for which the retirement age is 58 years and therefore, the Petitioner was superannuated on 30.9.2006. It is stated that the Petitioner was never designated as Office Assistant and he was only discharging the duties of Helper Grade-II. It is also stated that even though the pay scales for both the posts are equal, the service conditions are different. It is stated that the proceedings of the First Respondent dated 27.5.1998 was served on the Petitioner on 3.8.1998. According to the First Respondent, while joining duty the Petitioner had paid the caution deposit which has to be paid for superior service. It is stated that the Khadi Board is running loss and even though the Khadi Board employees are equated with all Government servants, the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission could not be implemented due to the above said reason and therefore, the request of the Petitioner for further extension of two years of service is not possible. 4. The Respondents have produced the impugned letter dated 27.5.1998 sent to all similarly situated persons including the Petitioner, who received the same by putting his initial on 3.8.1998. It is also seen that the Petitioner was relieved in the year 2006, after he completed the age of 58 years and as on date, he has crossed 60 years. 5. A reference to the order of appointment of the Petitioner dated 19.8.1932 by which the Petitioner along with many others was appointed as Helper Grade-II in the Second Respondent-Board does not show that he was appointed as basic servant. On the specific stand of the First Respondent in the Counter Affidavit that as per the guidelines in G.O.Ms. 5. A reference to the order of appointment of the Petitioner dated 19.8.1932 by which the Petitioner along with many others was appointed as Helper Grade-II in the Second Respondent-Board does not show that he was appointed as basic servant. On the specific stand of the First Respondent in the Counter Affidavit that as per the guidelines in G.O.Ms. No.147, Handlooms Handicraft Textile and Khadi Department, dated 15.7.1989, the post of Helper Grade-II is stated to be above the post of basic servants and for the said post, the age of retirement is stated to be 58 years, there is absolutely no reason to accept the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner should be treated as a basic servant. 6. Inasmuch as the impugned letter makes it clear that Helper Grade-II should be treated as superior service and the right of the Government in so categorizing is not under challenge, it is not possible for this Court to hold otherwise, merely because the salary pattern for the post of Helper Grade-II and the post of Office Assistant is one and the same. Inasmuch as per the service regulations of Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board, the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules are applicable to the employees of the Board, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner should be treated as a basic servant so as to enable him to continue in service till the completion of 60 years of age is not tenable. Even otherwise, the Petitioner as on date has crossed the age of 60 years and the Petitioner was directed to retire on completion of 58 years of age and therefore, I am of the considered to view that the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief as claimed in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.