His contentions before the Division Bench were: (i) Rule 2046 of the Rules having been framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and being a compendious code relating to a retired railway servant that provision alone could be invoked for the purpose of compulsory retirement and not para 620 of the Railway Pension Manual which is in 746 the nature of an executive order; (ii) Since rule 2046(h) of the Rules opens with a non obstante clause and para 620 of the Railway Pension Manual does not state that the said rule shall prevail notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, rule 2046(h) of the Rules cannot be made subject to para 620 of the Railway Pension Manual; and (iii) there being two separate provisions with regard to compulsory retirement, namely clause (h) of rule 2046 of the Rules and para 620 of the Railway Pension Manual, in the absence of any guidance as to when and which rule could be invoked in a given case, both the provisions would be inapplicable and the respondent could not be compulsorily retired.