Judgment : P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. 1. Rule. Rule, returnable forthwith. With the consent of the counsel for respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this final judgment. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Attendant some time in the year 1980. The petitioner was made to retire from service on attaining the age of 58 years on 30th June, 2011. The petitioner has challenged the said decision by which he was not allowed to continue up to the age of 60 years. The petition was filed in the month of October, 2011. The Division Bench of this Court while issuing notice, has made it clear in its order dated 21st October, 2011 that the petition may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the then Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.2954 and 2505 both of 2011 has held that the Laboratory Attendants working in the Agricultural University are entitled to serve up to the age of 60 years, they being Group “D” employees, and their age of retirement should not be considered as 58. The decision of this Court is given in the case of SamadhanRajaram Umak vs. Dr.Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth and another reported in 2011 (5) All M.R. 267. Learned counsel for the respondents frankly submits that so far as this judgment is concerned, it clearly applies to the case of the petitioner is concerned because he was also serving as Laboratory Attendant. However, the said judgment was subsequent to petitioner's superannuation and, therefore, the same cannot apply retrospectively. The learned counsel also further submits that the petitioner has already taken retiral dues at the relevant time and after receiving the same, subsequently he has filed this petition. 4. We have heard both the learned counsel appearing the matter. Since this Court has laid down the law that the age of retirement of Laboratory Attendant in the Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, to be of 60 years, the petitioner is entitled to serve up to 60 years. It is required to be noted that when the Court gives the judgment the principle laid down by the Court is to be considered as if the law laid down by the Court is the law which is prevailing from the beginning. It is required to be noted that when the Court gives the judgment the principle laid down by the Court is to be considered as if the law laid down by the Court is the law which is prevailing from the beginning. So far as enactment of law by the legislature is concerned, said enactment may have retrospective effect if the enactment so provides. So far as the law laid down in the judgment is concerned, there is no question of its applicability retrospectively or prospectively as the Court only declares the law as it is and, therefore, it is to be said that the principle of law pronounced by the Court in the judgment is to be considered as the law which is prevailing from inception and beginning. The petitioner is a class IV employee and simply because he was not knowing his rights and when the High Court has now pronounced that the age of retirement is of 60 years in the case of Laboratory Attendants, there is no reason now that the petitioner would not be allowed to serve till 60 years and he has not reached that stage as yet. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed affidavit of the petitioner undertaking that the petitioner will deposit the entire retiral benefits within a period of two weeks from today with the University. 5. Considering this aspect, the instant Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to serve up to the age of 60 years, which should be treated as date of superannuation. The petitioner is directed to deposit with the University all the retiral dues within a period of two weeks from today. The petitioner to be reinstated in service as Laboratory Attendant with effect from 1.3.2012. The services of the petitioner may be treated as continuous service. However since the petitioner has not worked, he is not entitled for back wages for the intervening period. However, the said period should be taken for continuation of service and all benefits. The affidavit submitted by the petitioner is taken on record. 6. Subject to what is stated above, Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.