IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16129 of 2009 Rudra Kant Mishra, son of late Jaynath Mishra, resident of village- Tatuar, P.S. Manigachhi, District- Darbhanga ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Agriculture Production Commissioner, Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Bihar, Patna 3. Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam Ltd., through Managing Director, Mithapur Agriculture Form Campus, Mithapur, Patna 4. Board of Directors, through its Chairman, Bihar Beej Nigam Ltd., Vikash Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna 5. Managing Director, Mithapur Agriculture Farm Campus, Mithapur, Patna 6. Company Secretary, Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam Ltd., Mithapur Agriculture Farm Campus, Mithapur, Patna 7. Chief of Finance, Mithapur Agriculture Farm Campus, Mithapur, Patna …………………………… Respondents. --------- 3. 30.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar State Seed Corporation. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the corporation whereunder he has been asked to superannuate on attaining the age of 58 years. According to counsel for the petitioner such decision is in teeth of the resolution of the Board dated 22.3.1979 whereunder the Board had resolved to extend the service conditions applicable to the Government employees to the employees of the Corporation. Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code having been amended under resolution of the Government dated 24.3.2005 and age of superannuation of the Govt. Employees extended to 60 years, the petitioner ought not to have been superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years. In this connection counsel for the Corporation submits that as a matter of policy, even after amendment in the Bihar Service Code employee(s) of the Corporation has been asked to superannuate no - 2 - sooner they attain the age of 58 years. In this connection learned counsel has referred to the decision of the Board dated 4.10.2005 whereunder it was resolved to superannuate the employees of the Corporation on attaining the age of 58 years as the Corporation is passing through financial crunch. The Corporation having already decided not to extend the age of superannuation of its employees, I do not see any merit in the writ application which is accordingly dismissed. S. Pandey (V.N.Sinha,J.)