ORDER
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The petitioners were retired from service on December 31, 1989 and July 31, 1984 respectively. The orders of retirement were passed on their attaining the age of 58 years. The petitioners claim that having been recruited as Clerks in the erstwhile State of Pepsu, they were entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years. They pray that the orders of retirement be quashed.
2. The respondents contest the claim of the petitioners on a two-fold basis. Firstly, it is submitted that in the erstwhile State of Pepsu only members of the inferior service were entitled to continue upto the age of 60 years. The petitioners had been recruited as Clerks. They were not members of the inferior service. Consequently, they were not entitled to continue till the age of 60 years. Secondly, it is submitted that the orders of retirement had been passed in the years 1989 and 1984 respectively. The petitioners have approached this, Court in the year 1998. The claim cannot be entertained at such a belated stage.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to refer to any provision which may indicate that the post of Clerk was a Class IV post or that the incumbent was treated as a member of the inferior service. Still further, it is the admitted position that the petitioners had been promoted and were working as Accountants at the time of their superannuation. Consequently, they were not members of the inferior service and had not right to continue till the age of 60 years. Learned counsel has not referred to any thing which may indicate that a person working as air Accountant had a right to continue till the age of 60 years. Thus, on merits, we find no ground to interfere.
5. Besides the above, it also deserve mention that petitioner No. 1 had been retired from service on December 31, 1989. Petitioner No. 2 had been retired 5 years earlier on July. 31, 1984. The writ petition was presented to this Court in the year 1993. On that day, even a civil suit to challenge the order of retirement would have been barred by limitation. Following the rule laid down in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai, AIR 1964 SC 1006, we find that the writ petition is highly belated and a deserves to be dismissed on that ground also.
6. No other point has been raised.
7. In view of the above, we find no merit in this writ petition.
8. It is, consequently, dismissed. Since the petitioners have already retired from service, we make no order as to costs.
9. Petition dismissed.