Judgment :- S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. The petitioner seeks an order directing the respondent nos.1 to 3 to absorb his services on the post of Principal of Arts, Commerce and Science College, Kalwan, and to grant him continuity of service from 1.2.2012 till he attains the age of 65 years, as well as consequential benefits pursuant thereto. 2. The respondent nos.2 and 3 are the Joint Director, Higher Education, Pune, and the Registrar of Pune University respectively. The respondent no.4 is the Chairman of Kalwan Education Society which runs a Arts, Science and Commerce College at Kalwan in Nashik District. 3. The petitioner was appointed as the Principal of the college in July 1983. His appointment was approved by the University of Pune on 12.6.1984. The said college is affiliated to the Pune University and receives 100% grant-in-aid from the State of Maharashtra. 4. The petitioner completed the age of 60 years on 31.01.2011. He, therefore, retired from the post on the same day. The petitioner however claims to be entitled to continue upto the age of 65 years, in view of a government resolution dated 25.2.2011, a translation whereof was tendered in court. The relevant part of the G.R., relied upon by the petitioner reads as under: “GOVT. DECISION: 1. …....... 2. In the non-governmental but aided colleges affiliated to non-agricultural universities working in the State, the age of retirement for the principals has been increased from age of 60 years to age of 65 years. However, before giving extension in the age of retirement upto 65 years, there will be performance review of the work done by the principal by the separate committee after he attains his age of 62 years on the basis of the recommendations given by the committee's report, the concern principal will be given extension in his services till he attains age of 65 years by Governments approval.” 5. The G.R. operates prospectively, it operates with effect from 25.2.2011, the day on which it was issued. This is clear from the plain language of the G.R. It expressly states that the age of retirement for the principals “has been” increased. The G.R. operates prospectively, it operates with effect from 25.2.2011, the day on which it was issued. This is clear from the plain language of the G.R. It expressly states that the age of retirement for the principals “has been” increased. The words “has been” in the context indicates that the increase in age does not apply to those who ceased to be in employment on the date of the G.R. As we noted earlier, the petitioner ceased to be in employment with effect from 31.1.2011. A view to the contrary would entitle any person and not merely the petitioner to the benefit of the increase in age, even though he had not been in employment as on the date of the G.R. Further, such a view may well entitle the persons who ceased to be in employment to the benefits of employment between the age of 60 and 65 years even though they may not have worked during that period. 6. The contention that the petitioner “missed the bus” by a mere 25 days does not answer the question. The Government had to stipulate some cut off date. There is nothing arbitrary or unreasonable about the date that has been stipulated. 7. It was then contended that the petitioner had been re-employed after he retired on 31.1.2011. The petitioner was re-employed pursuant to a G.R. dated 11.12.1999. Clause 22 of the G.R. , insofar as it is relevant to the petitioner's case reads as under: “22. Superannuation and Re-employment: The age of superannuation of teachers shall be 60 years and thereafter no extension in service shall be given. However, it may be open to a University or a college to re-employ a superannuated teacher according to the existing guidelines framed by the University Grants Commission, upto the age of 60 years, However, salary expenditure for such re-employed period beyond 60 years of age shall not be held admissible for purposes of grant-in-aid.” 8. This part of clause 22 of the G.R. admittedly applies in the petitioner's case for respondent no.4 is not a government college. Mr.Karnik submitted that the petitioner should be deemed to be in employment on the date of the G.R. i.e. 25.2.2011, as he had been re-employed after 31.1.2011. 9. The submission is not well founded. On 31.1.2011 the petitioner had ceased to be an employee of the respondent no.4. Mr.Karnik submitted that the petitioner should be deemed to be in employment on the date of the G.R. i.e. 25.2.2011, as he had been re-employed after 31.1.2011. 9. The submission is not well founded. On 31.1.2011 the petitioner had ceased to be an employee of the respondent no.4. There was a cessation of service upon retirement. This is emphasized by the first sentence of Clause 22 of the G.R. dated 11.12.1999 which states that after the age of superannuation “no extension in service shall be given”. The re-employment granted pursuant to clause 22 is a separate and independent contract of service between the college and the employee with which the government is not concerned. Indeed Clause 22 expressly provides that salary and expenditure for such reemployment beyond the age of 60 years shall not be held admissible for the purpose of grant-in-aid. It would not be permissible, therefore, to foist a financial liability upon the Government on the basis of persons under contracts of reemployment being considered to be in employment on the date of the G.R. dated 25.2.2011. The G.R. i.e. 25.2.2011 clearly does not include persons under a contract of reemployment pursuant to Clause 22 of the G.R. i.e. 11.2.1999, after they reach the age of superannuation. 10. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed.