IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8058 of 2009 PREM CHANDRA OJHA s/o late Jay Narayan Ojha, resident of 143 Anandpuri,P.S. Shrikrishnapuri , District-Patna. At present working as Divisional Manager, Bihar State Warehousing Corporation , B-2, Maurya Lok Complex, P.S. Kotwali, District-Patna. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Secretary, Department of Co-operative ,Government of Bihar, New Secretariat,Patna. 2.The Secretary, Department of Co-operative ,Government of Bihar, New Secretariat,Patna. 3. The Director, Department of Co-operative ,Government of Bihar, New Secretariat,Patna. 4. Bihar State Warehousing Corporation through its Managing Director, B-2, Maurya Lok Complex, P.S. Kotwali, District-Patna. 5. The Managing Director, Bihar State Warehousing Corporation, B-2, Maurya Lok Complex, P.S. Kotwali, District-Patna. 6. The Chairman, Bihar State Warehousing Corporation, B-2, Maurya Lok Complex, P.S. Kotwali, District-Patna. ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s B.K.Bariar,Sanajeev Kumar Mishra and Anand Priyadarshi For respondent no.6 : Mr. S.S.Dwivedi,Sr.Adv. Mr. R.S.Dwivedi and Ranjan Kr. Dubey For WareHousing Corporation : Mr. Naresh Dixit. 9 6.10.20 09 Petitioner was a permanent employee of Bihar State Pharmaceutical & Chemical Development Corporation. He was sent on deputation to the Bihar State Warehousing Corporation constituted under Agricultural Produce (Development sand Warehousing) Corporation Act, 1956. He had got in the Warehousing Corporation for over five years. He worked on deputation for more than five years. On attaining the age of 58 years, his services were being returned to his parent department instead of being absorbed in the Warehousing Corporation as was the policy decision taken by the Warehousing Corporation earlier. He came to this Court challenging these actions. A controversy arose as to what is the decision of 2 the Board of the Warehousing Corporation. The controversy was serious inasmuch as Managing Director maintained that Board took no decision about absorption of employees on long term deputation. The Chairman of the Board of the Corporation took a stand that the Board took a positive decision not to absorb deputationists rather to send them back. The two stands are in contradiction but, in my view, it is not necessary to be resolved because it is not in dispute that the action that was being taken to repatriate the petitioner was on the ground that he had attained the age of 58 years., which is the age of superannuation of an employee of Bihar State Pharmaceutial & Chemical Development Corporation Limited. It is not in dispute that so far as employees of Pharmaceutical Corporation are concerned, their age of superannuation is 58 years and has not been extended to 60 years. If that be so, then whether the petitioner remained on deputation in Warehousing Corporation or was reverted to its parent Corporation makes little difference because he superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years. His service career has thus come to an end. That being so, whatever may be the decision of the Board of the Warehousing Corporation is of no consequence. No relief can thus be granted to the petitioner in the facts, aforesaid. The writ petition stands disposed of. Singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)