JUDGMENT : 1. In present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction directing the respondent authorities to take appropriate decision treating the petitioner as an employee of respondent nos.1 and 2; and the instructions issued through Government Resolution dated 04.02.2009 by treating him as their employee. It is also further prayed that his superannuation age may be enhanced from 58 years to 62 years. 2. It is pertinent to note that present petition was filed on 01.04.2010 and the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years on 30.04.2010 i.e. in the same month seeking enhancement of retirement/superannuation age from 58 years to 62 years. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed by order dated 19.09.1979 as Medical Officer, Class-II. After his appointment as Medical officer, Class-II, he was given posting at District Panchayat Dispensary precisely at Bharuch. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner would fall under the Commissioner, Health, Medical Services and Medical Education and hence, his age is to be enhanced from 58 years to 62 years. 4. Mr.Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner has pointed out the order dated 18.01.2006, wherein the petitioner along with other employees was promoted to the post of Medical Officer, Grade-II. He has submitted that the said order was passed by the Director, Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy i.e. respondent no.3. 5. Mr.Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner has pointed out Resolution dated 04.02.2009 passed by Health and Family Welfare Department enhancing the age of Medical Officers from 58 Years to 62 years. He has stated that the aforesaid resolution squarely covers the case of the petitioner, as he was a Medical Officer working under the said Department. 6. Mr.Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner has also pointed out the letter dated 17.09.2009 written by the Chief District Welfare Officer, Rajpipla, Dist:Narmada addressed to Commissioner, Health and Medical Services, Gandhinagar, wherein he has sought clarification about the services of the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner till the age of superannuation served under the respondent no.2 Commissioner, Health, Medical Services and Medical Education, Gandhinagar and has never served in the Aurvedic or under the Director of Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy. It is contended that the petitioner till the age of superannuation served under the respondent no.2 Commissioner, Health, Medical Services and Medical Education, Gandhinagar and has never served in the Aurvedic or under the Director of Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy. Thus, he has contended that the Resolution dated 04.02.2009 is applicable in the case of the petitioner and superannuation age ought to have been enhanced to 62 years as per the aforesaid resolution. He has also drawn attention of this Court to the notification dated 25.06.2012 (the same is not placed on record). He has submitted that as per the aforesaid notification issued by the Finance Department, the State Government has enhanced the superannuation age of the Medical Officer from 58 years to 62 years. 7. In view of the aforesaid submissions, he has stated that the petitioner is entitled to the service till he attains the age of 62 years and has been illegally retired from the service at the age of 58 years. 8. It is noted that entire controversy raised in present petition revolves around the interpretation of the Resolution dated 04.02.2009 issued by the Health and Family Welfare Department, wherein the age of the retirement of employees mentioned therein have been enhanced from 58 years to 62 years. A careful scrutiny of the aforesaid resolution reveals that the same would not apply in the case of the petitioner. The said resolution is issued by the Health and Family Welfare Department enhancing the age of those employees working under the “Education Cadre” working in the Medical and Dental Colleges. Indubitably the petitioner is not working in the Medical/Dental Colleges under the cadre of Education. Reliance placed upon the resolution dated 04.02.2009 is misplaced and misconceived, as it would not apply in the case of the petitioner. Hence, the prayer for enhancement of retirement age from 58 to 62 years is rejected. 9. It is pertinent to state here that the initial appointment of the petitioner is made by the Gujarat Panchayat Services Selection Board. The reliance placed on the subsequent notification dated 25.06.2012 issued by the Finance Department will not come to his rescue, as the same is passed subsequently after the retirement of the petitioner. The petitioner has reached at the age of superannuation and has retired from the services on 30.04.2010. The reliance placed on the subsequent notification dated 25.06.2012 issued by the Finance Department will not come to his rescue, as the same is passed subsequently after the retirement of the petitioner. The petitioner has reached at the age of superannuation and has retired from the services on 30.04.2010. The petitioner has approached this Court at the fag end of his retirement. In fact, by the letter dated 06.11.2008 issued by the Administrative Officers, Medical Services and Medical Education (Health Department), Gandhinagar, it was pointed that the petitioner has already filed an application for voluntary retirement and has also issued notice dated 21.10.2008 to accept his voluntary retirement with effect 01.02.2009. Nevertheless, the same was not processed, and thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition for enhancing the age of retirement. In view of the aforesaid observations, the present petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.