Against this decision the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court under Art.
On appeal the High Court took a different view of Rule 2046 and held that that rule gave the plaintiff numberright to companytinue in service beyond the age of 55 years.
283 of 1960.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated, November 20, 1958, of the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench in First Civil Appeal No.
3 of 1956.
The Trial Court accepted the plaintiffs companytention as regards the effect of the rule, gave him a declaration as prayed for and also decreed the claim for money in part.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
His prayer for further retention in service on the ground that he was entitled to be retained under Rule 2046/2 of the Railway Establishment Code having been rejected he brought the suit which has given rise to this appeal in the companyrt of the Civil Judge, Lucknow, alleging that he was entitled to be retained under the above rule, and the order for companypulsory retirement on attaining the age of 55 years was.
The main defence was a denial of his right to be retained in service under the rules.
B. Agarwala and C. P. Lal, for the appellant.
Ganapathy Iyer and T. M. Sen, for the respondent.
He accordingly prayed for a declaratory decree that the order of his companypulsory retirement was illegal and void and for a money decree for, arrears of pay on the basis that he had companytinued in service.
void and inoperative in law.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAs GUPTA, J. The appellant, a clerk in the service of the East Indian Railways was companypulsorily retired from service with effect from June 30, 1948, on attaining the age of 55 years.
March 16.
