KULDIP SINGH, J.


The petitioner joined service in the Transport Department of the erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat in September 1960. On the formation of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation with effect from June 1, 1962 his services were transferred to the said corporation. He retired from service on completing the age of 58 years on June 30, 1987. In this writ petition the petitioner claims that the age of superannuation in the service of the corporation was 60 years and as such his retirement at 58 was illegal


2. We have today pronounced judgment in Civil Appeal No. 1731 of 1986 - S.P. Dubey v. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation 1991 (S1) SCC 426 : 1991 SCC(L&S) 1010 : 1991 (16) ATC 939]. We have held that all those employees of the corporation who had originally joined service with the Central Provinces Transport Services Limited (hereinafter called 'the Company') are entitled to remain in service till attaining the age of 60 years


3. Prior to August 31, 1955, transport service in the State of Madhya Pradesh was being run by the Company. The age of superannuation of the employees of the Company, except the Drivers, was 60 years. The Company was purchased and taken over by the State of Madhya Pradesh on August 31, 1955. Thereafter the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation was established by the State Government with effect from June 1, 1962 and the services of the employees including the petitioner were transferred to the said corporation. Some of the employees of the corporation were those who had originally joined service with the company. In S.P. Dubey case 1991 (S1) SCC 426 : 1991 SCC(L&S) 1010 : 1991 (16) ATC 939], we have held that all those employees who had joined service with the company are entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years. The petitioner does not belong to that category of employees. He joined service with the State of Madhya Pradesh in September 1960, when the age of superannuation was 58 years and it continued to

be the same till he retired. His case is, therefore, distinguishable from that of S.P. Dubey case 1991 (S1) SCC 426 : 1991 SCC(L&S) 1010 : 1991 (16) ATC 939]. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.