IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 6402 of 2008. Decided on: 02.08.2010. __________________________________________________________ Purshotam Datt Misra. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner. : None. For the Respondents. : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that since the Central Government has enhanced the retirement age from 58 to 60 years as per office memorandum dated 13th May, 1998, the petitioner should also be retired from service at the age of 60 years and not 58 years. The State of Himachal Pradesh has also issued Notification dated 30 July, 1998 on the basis of which the petitioner and similarly situate person have to retire from service on attaining the age of 58 years and not 60 years, as claimed by the petitioner. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Notification issued by the Central Government for the Central Government employees was ever adopted by the State of Himachal Pradesh. The State Government is not under obligation to adopt the Central Government 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - Notification. It is for the State Government to prescribe the retirement age for its employees. Consequently, there is no illegality in the Notification dated 30th July, 1998 whereby the age of superannuation has been prescribed as 58 years. 2. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. August 02, 2010. (sck).