JUDGMENT : R.K. Deshpande, J. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to communications dated 9.3.2017 and 15.3.2017 by which the petitioner, who was working as a Peon in the services of the Maharashtra State Secondary and Higher Secondary Board was informed that, on his attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years, he shall stand relieved from service w.e.f. 31.3.2017. Placing reliance upon Clause (2) of Government Resolution dated 15.11.1985, it is urged that the employees in service on or before 15.11.1985 are entitled to be continued in service upto the age of 60 years. According to the petitioner, he was in service prior to 15.11.1985 and hence, the respondents were wrong in retiring him on completion of age of 58 years w.e.f. 31.3.2017. 3. It is the specific stand taken by the respondent/Board relying upon Rule 20(3)(a) of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Board Regulations, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations of 1977") that an employee who is confirmed in a permanent post may continue in service till he completes the age of 60 years. Reliance is further placed upon Clause (2) of the Government Resolution dated 15.11.1985 and also letter of confirmation dated 4.12.1986 to urge that the petitioner was confirmed in service after the Government Resolution dated 15.11.1985 and therefore, the decision to retire him on completion of 58 years of age was correct. 4. In terms of Rule 20(3)(a) of the Regulations of 1977, an employee who is confirmed in a permanent post is entitled to continue in service till he completes the age of 60 years. The petitioner was confirmed in permanent post on 4.12.1986 and therefore, he was entitled to be continued in service upto the age of 60 years. So far as Clause (2) in Government Resolution dated 15.11.1985 is concerned, we find that it makes the employees in service prior to 15.11.1985 to continue in service upto the age of 60 years. The provision does not prescribe the condition of confirmation of an employee in service, as contemplated in Rule 20(3)(a) referred to above. Such requirement cannot, therefore, be read in Clause (2) of the said Government Resolution. The provision does not prescribe the condition of confirmation of an employee in service, as contemplated in Rule 20(3)(a) referred to above. Such requirement cannot, therefore, be read in Clause (2) of the said Government Resolution. Undisputedly, the petitioner was in service of the Board working as a Peon by virtue of order dated 6.8.1985, may be for a period of six months which expired subsequent to 15.11.1985. Barring technical breaks, the petitioner was in continuous service since 6.8.1985 till his retirement. The petitioner, therefore, could not have been denied the benefit of continuation in service upto the age of 60 years. The impugned orders cannot, therefore, be sustained. 5. We are informed that the petitioner has actually worked on the said post upto the age of 60 years and he was discharged on 31.3.2019. He has also been paid salary for a period of two years, but his pension has not been fixed on the basis that his age of superannuation is of 60 years. We, therefore, direct the respondents to treat the age of superannuation of petitioner as 60 years and to formulate pension payable to him accordingly with all consequential benefits. The arrears, if any, can be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from today. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.