IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1597 of 2009 ***** 1. RAJENDRA SAO S/O LATE CHOKAT SAO R/O MOHALLA- WATER BOARD, P.S.- KOTWALI, DISTT.- PATNA, RETIRED AS PIPE LINE MISTRY. 2. SHEO PUJAN RAM S/O LATE SUCHIT RAM R/O MOHALLA- WATER BOARD P.S. KOTWALI DISTT.- PATNA, RETIRED AS PIPE LINE MISTRY FROM WATER BOARD. …. …. Petitioners No.2 & 3-Appellants Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADMINISTRATOR, P.M.C. AND WATER BOARD, PATNA, BIHAR 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, WATER BOARD, PATNA, BIHAR 4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER BOARD, PATNA, BIHAR …. …. Respondents-Respondents 5. SRI RAM BACHCHU PRASAD S/O LATE KEWAL PRASAD METER MECHANIC, P.S. PHULWARISHARIF, DISTT.- PATNA (EMPLOYEE OF THE BOARD , WATER BOARD, PATNA P.S. KOTWALI, DISTT.- PATNA) 6. SRI MOHAN HAZARA S/O LATE NAYAK HAZARA PIPE LINE MISTRY (EMPLOYEE OF THE BOARD , WATER BOARD, PATNA P.S. KOTWALI, DISTT.- PATNA) 7. SRI HASIBULLAH S/O LATE BAKRIDU MIAN PIPE LINE MISTRY (EMPLOYEE OF THE BOARD, WATER BOARD, PATNA P.S. KOTWALI, DISTT.- PATNA) 8. SRI DANISH HAZARA S/O INDRA DEO HAZARA MISTRY PIPE LINE (EMPLOYEE OF THE BOARD , WATER BOARD, PATNA P.S. KOTWALI, DISTT.- PATNA). …. …. Petitioners-Respondents ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. B.J.Jha, Advocate For the Corporation: Mr. Bishwa Bibhuti Kumar Singh, Advocate ---------- 3. 28.6.2010. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 1.3.2006 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 10635 of 2005 the appellants have preferred - 2 - this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent. The learned single Judge recording the concession of the petitioners that their case is covered by the order dated 23rd January, 2006 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6729 of 2005 has disposed of the said writ petition in the same terms. The learned single Judge while disposing of C.W.J.C. No. 6729 of 2005 and other analogous cases has held as under: - “Having heard the counsel for the parties and having considered the question raised in this batch of writ petitions, I am of the view that failure to grant benefit of the extended retirement age from 58 years to 60 years during the period between 24.3.2005 to 26.8.2005 amounts to discrimination against those employees who were made to superannuate at the age of 58 years during the said period, accordingly, these applications are disposed of with direction that the benefit of the extended retirement age to the corporation employees should also be given from the date of the resolution of the State Government i.e. 24.3.2005 with continuity in service but without the benefit of arrears of salary for the period as they have not worked during the said period. The aforesaid direction not to pay the arrears of salary shall, however, be subject to the interim order passed in favour of the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 6729/2005 and C.W.J.C. Nos. 7240, 7146 & 6939/2005. - 3 - The appellants being aggrieved to the extent that they have not been allowed the wages for the interregnum period have preferred this appeal. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out. The appeal is dismissed. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J)