IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.705 of 2010 SURAJ NARAYAN SINGH S/O LATE BRIGUNATH SINGH R/O VILL KHARWANIA, P.O.BELAHRI, P.S.SIKRAUL,DISTT-BUXAR,AT PRESENT RETIRED ASSISTANT, STATE FOOD CORPORATION,BHOJPUR Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD. SONE BHAWAN, BIR CHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR , BIHAR STATE FOOD &CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., SONE BHAWAN, BIR CHAND PATEL PATH,PATNA 3. THE CHIEF OF ADMINISTRATION HEADQUARTER, BIHAR STATE FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD. SONE BHAWAN , BIR CHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, STATE FOOD CORPORATION BHOJPUR, AT ARA with CWJC No.117 of 2010 NARENDRA KUMAR SINHA S/O LATE KARTIK PRASAD SINHA R/O VILL/MOH- THANA ROAD, BAHADURGANJ, PS- BAHADURGANJ, DISTT- KISHANGANJ Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED, SONE BHAWAN, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA, THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR, 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED, ONE BHAWAN BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA 3. CHIEF OF ADMINISTRATION, BIHAR STATE FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED, PATNA 4. DISTRICT MANAGER, BIHAR STATE FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED, PATNA 5. DISTRICT MANAGER, BIHAR STATE FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED, HEAD QUARTER, PURNEA 6. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA For the Petitioners :- M/s Sanjeev Nikesh, Shashi Priya Pathak, Advocates For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Ravi, AC to GP-15, Advocate. For the Corporation :- M/s R.S.Pradhan, Sr. Adv., Amrendra Narayan Rai, Advocate. ----------- 03. 09.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation(hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”). 2. Petitioners in the two writ application are the employees of the Corporation. They are aggrieved by the office order dated 17.1.2006 and 28.1.2006 as contained in Annexures-1 and 3 respectively to the two writ application, whereunder they have been directed to superannuate with effect from 31.1.2006. It is submitted on their behalf that the aforesaid orders have been passed contrary to the provisions contained in Rule-73 of the Bihar Service Code, which has been adopted by the Corporation until framing of the service regulation. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the State - 2 - Government amended the provisions contained in Rule 73 of the Service Code under resolution dated 24.3.2005 and thereby extended the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years and with effect from the date of amendment i.e. 24.3.2005 the Corporation employees should also have been superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgment of this Court dated 17.1.2008 passed in L.P.A. No.829 of 2007 and other analogous matters, Annexure-3 of C.W.J.C. No.705 of 2010, whereunder the order superannuating the appellants/petitioners who approached this Court in the aforesaid LPA was set aside as violative of Rule 73 of the Service Code and appellants/petitioners were allowed the consequential benefit. Learned counsel on the strength of order dated 17.1.2008 submitted that the impugned orders dated 17.1.2006 and 28.1.2006 be set aside and Corporation be directed to grant the petitioners consequential benefit of reinstatement as by now petitioners have attained the age of 60 years. 4. Counsel for the Corporation has opposed the prayer. He states that the two writ application be dismissed on the ground of laches. In this connection, he relied on the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court dated 13.1.2010 passed in the case of Sri Mahabir Prasad who was also an employee of the Corporation and superannuated with effect from 31.5.2005 but approached the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi by filing the writ petition in the year 2008 on the ground that in terms of the amended Rule 73 of the Service Code, he ought not to have been superannuated on 31.5.2005 after attaining the age of 58 years. Relief prayed for in the writ application was refused by the Jharkhand High Court with reference to the judgment of - 3 - the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Jal Nigam and another Versus Jaswant Singh and Another, reported in 2006(11) SCC 464 as petitioner had approached the Court after about three years of his retirement on 31.5.2005. Learned counsel further relied on the interim order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 22.1.2010 in L.P.A. No.850 of 2009, whereunder the order granting benefit of the extended retirement age to Mahendra Pratap Singh, another employee of the Corporation who superannuated w.e.f. 30.4.2006 by this Court under orders dated 5.5.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No.5679 of 2009, Annexure-8 has been stayed under orders dated 22.1.2010 passed in L.P.A. No.850 of 2009 and with reference to the aforesaid orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Jal Nigam and Another and interim order of this Court dated 22.1.2010 submitted that this Court may not grant the benefit of extended retirement age to the two petitioner as they have approached this Court belatedly after more than three years of their retirement. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the view that as the question of grant of benefit of extended retirement age to the employees of the Corporation who have approached this Court belatedly is pending in L.P.A. No.850 of 2009 before the Division Bench of this Court, it is expedient to dispose of the two writ application with observation that the order, which is impugned in the two writ application shall be subject to the result of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.850 of 2009. 6. With the aforesaid observation the two writ applications are disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.) - 4 -