IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12328 of 2009 LALAN PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 05.10.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. Learned Counsel for the petitioner acknowledges that he has not impleaded the Bihar State Pharmaceutical & Chemical Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) in the cause title as a party respondent notwithstanding the order of the Court dated 17.9.2009. He however submits that he has served a copy of the writ petition in the office of the Corporation on 18.9.2009. The earlier direction of the Court was for service of a copy of the writ petition on the Counsel normally representing the Corporation before this Court. Naturally, the Corporation is not represented by any Counsel, much less the name of the Counsel for the Corporation appearing in the cause list. The petitioner has only himself to blame for this predicament because of his not complying the Court’s order dated 17.9.2009. In the facts of the case and the nature of the relief sought, no useful purpose is going to be served by awaiting appearance of the Corporation as the writ petition can easily be disposed off in terms of the following order. The petitioner contends that he was initially appointed in the services of the Corporation whereafter he was sent on deputation in 1997 to the State Government in the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS). It is his further case that he 2 is thus entitled to continue on his deputation in the State Government. No copy of the order of deputation and the terms of deputation have been brought on record in the writ petition. There is no material on record with regard to the mode, method and manner of the continuance of the petitioner on deputation in the State Government. If the petitioner is correct in his presentation and the only ground for reverting him back to his parent department by order dated 4.1.2008, and with which he is aggrieved, is that the age of superannuation in the Corporation is 58 years and therefore he is no more eligible to continue in Government service on deputation after that age, the matter is purely administrative in nature to be examined by the Department where he is on deputation in light of the resolution of the Corporation dated 254.2.2004 resolving that till such time that the Corporation did not frame its rules and regulation, that framed by the State of Bihar for its own employees shall stand adopted by the Corporation. This consideration is to be done in the light of the submission of the petitioner that his age of superannuation in the Corporation automatically stood enhanced to 60 years in light of certain orders of this Court on similar issue reported in 2008(1) PLJR 579. If there is no other ground for reversion of the petitioner except the issue of age, the respondents are obliged to consider 3 the case of the petitioner for continuance of deputation in light of the law laid down by this Court referred to above. The writ application stands disposed off with the aforesaid observations. The Court hopes and expects that the respondent State shall; take expeditious decision in the matter and not further complicate the matter by sheer inaction generating unwanted litigation before this Court, which may not be viewed favourably. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)