YASHWANT VARMA,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State respondents and Sri Qamrul Hasan Siddiqui along with Sri Azad Khan who appear for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 26 October 2016 whereby the petitioner has been retired from service with effect from 31 October 2016. The petitioner also questions the correctness of a Circular dated 23 May 2014, issued by the fourth respondent. A further direction is sought commanding the respondents not to interfere in his working as a Works Supervisor till 30 June 2017 i.e. the date when he attains the age of 60 years. It is not disputed that when the writ petition was initially filed, no interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner and he thus retired consequent to the impugned notice dated 26 October 2016. Even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted, he would at best be liable to be treated as being in service till 30 June 2017 and consequently entitled to all benefits. Since the rival submissions would turn upon an appreciation of the impugned notice dated 26 October 2016 as also the Circular 26 May 2014, the Court deems it proper to extract the two herein below:- ...[VERNACULER TEXT OMITTED]... During the course of submissions, the Court had desired the learned counsel for the petitioner to place on record any Circular, rule or regulation which may have specified an age of retirement for the employees of the Jal Nigam. Pursuant to the liberty granted by the Court, Shri Khare has placed on the record a Circular dated 23 December 2011 in terms of which the Chairman of the U.P. Jal Nigam has specified the age of retirement of all employees to be 60 years. The said Circular which is placed on record and is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents reads thus:- ...[VERNACULER TEXT OMITTED]... The petitioner is stated to have been appointed as a Tubewell Operator on daily wages on 4 May 1973. By an order dated 15 March 1991, the respondents proceeded to regularise his services on the post of Pump Attendant. The regularisation was made effective from 1 April 1984. On 8 November 1992, the petitioner is stated to have been promoted on the post of Work Supervisor. He was working in this capacity when the impugned notice came to be issued directing the retirement of the petitioner on 31 October 2016. The retirement notice holds out that the petitioner would be treated to have completed 60 years in terms of a communication dated 7 October 2016 and would thus stand retired from the services of the Nigam with effect from 31 October 2016. On the plain language employed in the impugned notice, it is apparent that the same is factually incorrect. It is not disputed that the date of birth of the petitioner is 12 June 1957. He would have consequently attained the age of superannuation only on 30 June 2017. What the impugned notice perhaps seeks to convey is the retirement of the petitioner being effected in terms of the Circular dated 23 May 2014. This clearly flow from the mentioning of the date 4 May 1973 and the communication of the Nigam dated 7 October 2016 which was but a reiteration of the Circular dated 23 May 2014. In order to appreciate the stand of the Nigam, it would be relevant to advert to the Circular dated 23 May 2014 and appreciate the position which came to be elaborated therein. According to the said Circular issued by the Chief Engineer of the Jal Nigam, it was thought appropriate to "retire" all field officers and employees upon completion of service of 42 years. The period of 42 years was to be computed from the date of their initial engagement. The Circular provided that completion of 42 years of service would necessarily result in the retirement of all field officers/employees. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner had completed 42 years of service when computed from the date of his initial engagement which was 4 May 1973. It was in light of this fact and in implementation of the directive contained in the Circular dated 23 May 2014 that the impugned notice came to be issued. Sri Khare, submitted that no statutory Rule or Regulation governs the subject of age of retirement of the employees of the Nigam. He further refers to the fact that the U.P. Jal Nigam Employees (Retirement on Attaining the Age of Superannuation) Rules 20051 had come to be struck down by a Division Bench of this Court. In the absence of any Rule or Regulation having statutory flavour, the date of retirement of all employees, in the submission Sri Khare was based upon Circulars and Office Orders issued by the Jal Nigam from time to time. In the submission of Shri Khare, the office order dated 23 December 2011 continues to hold the field and in unambiguous terms prescribes the age of retirement of all the employees of the Jal Nigam. In view thereof Sri Khare submits that the impugned notice is clearly rendered unsustainable. According to him, as on 31 October 2016 it could not be said that the petitioner had attained the age of 60 years. In addition to the above, Sri Khare in support of his challenge to the Circular dated 23 May 2014 submits that the respondents have proceeded to compute the total length of service rendered by the petitioner from the date of his initial engagement as a daily wager. He submits that the services rendered by an employee of the Jal Nigam in the capacity of a daily wage worker is never countenanced for the purposes of computing pensionary benefits and other retiral dues. His submission was that the Circular is clearly arbitrary when it proceeds to compute the total length of services from the date of initial engagement and even including the service rendered by an employee in the capacity of a daily wage worker. Although Sri Khare also advanced certain arguments based upon the minimum age for entering service in the Nigam, this Court does not deem it necessary to either notice or rule upon the same in light of the findings which follow hereinafter. As noted above, the entire edifice of the stand of the Nigam rests upon the Circular dated 23 May 2014. This Circular has been authored by the Chief Engineer of the Nigam. As one notices the Circular in its entirety, it is more than apparent that it does not prescribe an age of superannuation. In essence, the Circular provides for the cessation of employment of officers/employees upon completing 42 years of service. This the Court is constrained to hold for the simple reason that the Circular makes no reference to the age of retirement of 60 years as prescribed. The Circular only mandates and commands the identification of all field officers/employees who have completed 42 years of service from the date of their initial engagement in the Nigam and consequently 'retire' them from service. The emphasis on the word 'retire' as used in the Circular is made since in the considered view of this Court, it is essentially a euphemism for discontinuance from service upon completion of 42 years in the employment of the Jal Nigam. The reason for holding so follows. It is not disputed by the respondents or the learned counsel in the course of their oral submissions that the date of retirement was in fact fixed by the Chairman of the Jal Nigam as evident from his Office Order dated 23 December 2011. The fact that the Chief Engineer is an authority subordinate to the Chairman, Jal Nigam also possibly cannot be disputed. More fundamentally, the Court notes that the Office Order issued by the Chairman of the Jal Nigam was itself based upon a decision taken by the Board of Directors of the Jal Nigam in its 127th meeting held on 23 December 2011. The Circular dated 23 May 2014 is not based upon any subsequent decision of the Board of the Jal Nigam or its Chairman. The Circular in question has also not been issued upon instructions received from any superior authority or in supersession of any other earlier Circular that may be said to govern the subject of age of retirement. More fundamentally, the Circular dated 25 May 2014 does not supersede the Office Order dated 23 December 2011. It is therefore evident that the Office Order dated 23 December 2011 continues to hold the field and it therefore must necessarily be held that the age of retirement in the Jal Nigam continues to be 60 years. The issue which therefore falls for determination is whether the Chief Engineer of the Jal Nigam could have issued instructions which operated contrary to the Office Order issued by the Chairman which itself was based upon a decision of the Board of the Directors of the Jal Nigam. The answer to the above must necessarily be in the negative. Learned Counsel for the respondents do not dispute and in fact submit that the Jal Nigam is a body corporate whose affairs are administered by a Board of Directors whose decisions on matters of policy are clearly binding on all subordinate authorities of the Jal Nigam. They did not rely upon or place before the Court any material evidencing a decision taken by the Board either amending the age of retirement or superseding the Office Order dated 23 December 2011. It was also not disputed by the learned counsels that the said Office Order continued to govern the subject of retirement. The Circular dated 23 May 2014 clearly operates to interfere with and eclipse the right of an employee of the Jal Nigam to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years. The prescription of effecting "retirement" of an employee upon completion of 42 years is not shown to have any overriding authority. As long as the Office Order remains in force and the age of retirement continues to remain fixed at 60 years, no Circular can possibly operate which has the effect of shortening the period for which an officer or employee can continue in service. The impugned Circular is not shown to be based upon any subsequent decision of the Board authorising the creation of this artificial distinction between persons who had rendered 42 years of service and those who had not. In view thereof it is abundantly clear that the impugned Circular is clearly repugnant to the Office Order issued on the basis of the decision of the Board of the Jal Nigam. In view of the conclusions recorded herein above, it is apparent that the Circular dated 23 May 2014 cannot be sustained for the reasons aforementioned. The Court finds an additional ground on which to fault the action taken by the respondents. It appears that the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Court striking down the 2005 Rules was taken in appeal by the State before the Supreme Court2. During the course of disposal of the said appeal, the Supreme Court noticed the conflicting age of retirement which was prescribed by the Jal Nigam despite the earlier judgment of the Court in Harwindra Kumar Vs. Chief Engineer Karmik and others3. Upon an over all analysis of the stand taken by the Jal Nigam, the Supreme Court while disposing of the appeals of the State vide its judgment dated 2 July 2013 observed thus:- "19. Thus, from a detailed analysis and close examination of facts relating to condition of service of employees of the Nigam starting from its constitution till today, the following facts emerges: (a) The question relating to age of superannuation of employees of the Nigam stood finally concluded on 18th November, 2005 when this Court rendered decision in Harwindra Kumar (supra). (b) After judgment in Harwindra Kumar (supra) based on liberty given by this Court, the Nigam framed Regulations, 2005 prescribing two separate age of superannuation for the employees of the Nigam, without amending Regulation 31. The Nigam subsequently by Resolution dated 13th April, 2008 proposed to amend Regulations 2005 prescribing common age of 60 years for superannuation for all employees of the Nigam. The State Government by its order dated 29th June, 2009 prescribed uniform age of superannuation as 58 years for all the employees working in the Government Undertakings i.e. Government Companies and Government Corporations and then in view of such decision, the State Government refused to accord approval to the recommendations of the Nigam dated 13th April, 2008 by its letter dated 3rd July, 2009." The Court further notes that Supreme Court took note of the the decision of the Board of the Jal Nigam dated 23 December 2011 which was duly approved by the Government of Uttar Pradesh vide its Order No. 3199/9-3-11-113C/2011 of the same date which was itself placed before the Supreme Court during the course of the disposal of the civil appeal. Taking note of the Government Order dated 23 December 2011, which accepted the prescription of a uniform age of retirement of 60 years for all employees of the Nigam, the Supreme Court found no ground to interfere with the judgment rendered by this Court which had held that the 2005 Rules were unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in Dayanand Chakrawarti ultimately noted thus:- "30. In view of the finding as recorded above and the State Governments letter dated 23rd December 2011 no interference is called for in the impugned judgment, whereby the High Court held Regulations, 2005 unconstitutional, violative of Article 14 and set aside the orders of retirement." If the Circular dated 23 May 2014 were permitted to stand it would clearly result in the resurrection of the arbitrary situation which was faulted by this Court in its judgment holding the 2005 Rules to be violative of Article 14. The operation of the Circular would again result in the creation of two classes of employee where while on the one hand would be those who would be retired on completion of 42 years of service from the date of their initial engagement and on the other those who would be retired upon attaining the age of 60 years. This conflicting position would clearly be arbitrary and would necessarily result in an invidiously discriminatory situation similar to that which was frowned upon and struck down not just by this Court but also the Supreme Court. This Court cannot ignore the possibility of a situation where a person may not be 60 years of age on completion of 42 years of service. In the absence of any valid justification for such a classification between the officers/employees of the Jal Nigam the Court must necessarily hold that the age of retirement must be uniform and cannot be left to the vagaries of the total length of service rendered by an officer/employee. Learned counsels for the respondents also did not drawn the attention of the Court to any decision taken subsequent to 23 December 2011 by either the Board of the Jal Nigam or the Government of Uttar Pradesh sanctioning the directions contained in the impugned Circular. In the facts of the present case, it is not disputed that the petitioner would complete 60 years only on 30 June 2017. This evidently because the date of birth of the petitioner is 12 June 1957. Learned counsel for the respondents were unable to explain as to how the impugned notice came to hold that the petitioner would complete 60 years as on 31 October 2016. The cessation of his employment upon completion of 42 years of service in accordance with the impugned Circular has already been found to be illegal and unsustainable. Accordingly and for the reasons noted above, this writ petition shall stand allowed. The Circular dated 23 May 2014 is hereby quashed. The impugned notice dated 26 October 2016 shall consequently stand set aside. The petitioner shall in consequence, be entitled to be treated to have continued in service till 30 June 2017 and be entitled to all consequential benefits. ;