IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4236 of 2006 RAMANUJ PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4 22.08.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner wants quashing of an order dated 01.08.2005 contained in Annexure – 9. By virtue of which the petitioner has been made to retire on reaching the age of 58 years. Contention of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that by virtue of a notification dated 24.03.2005 issued by the State Government and the consequential amendment to Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code, petitioner is entitled to enhanced age of retirement. Petitioner contends that this benefit of amended service rule is available to the employees of the corporation. But stand has been taken on behalf of the respondents that the effort to enhance the age of retirement of this corporation has been turned down by the then Bureau of Public Enterprises for many a reasons. Primary being that the corporation has eaten up its capital and has run into huge losses and there is 2 hardly any work available to the employees who are on the rolls of the corporation. Effort was made for winding up of the corporation, but for a technical reason the same got dismissed and therefore, corporation exists only on paper for all practical purpose. An identical matter of yet another employee in C.W.J.C. No. 7066 of 2007 was taken up and decided vide order dated 31.08.2007. A view was taken by this Bench that in similar circumstance, the benefit of enhanced age of retirement may not be available to the petitioner of the said writ application. The case of the present petitioner being no different and the reasoning provided in the order dated 31.08.2007 being similar the court does not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner. The writ application is therefore, dismissed. Rajeev/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)