IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7937 of 2005 Brijendra Prasad Lal, son of Late Rama Patti Lal, resident of Village and P.O. Dehari, P.S. Rajpur, District- Buxar, at present resident of Mohalla- C.D.A. Colony, P.S. Shastrinagar, District- Patna. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Secretary-cum- Commissioner, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. Additional Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. ... Respondents. ----------- 02- 20.4.2009 Heard Mr. Udit Narain Singh for the petitioner, and Mr. S.S. Sundaram for the respondents. The petitioner seeks a direction to the State of Bihar to give him the benefit of continuance of service till he attains the age of sixty years. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner had joined the services of the Bihar Government and was holding the post of Price Reporter on the date of his superannuation. The Class-III and Class-IV employees of the Bihar Government were on strike from 21.1.2005 to 24.3.2005. The strike was dissolved after the State Government conceded the demands. The State Government had, 2 inter alia, agreed that they shall superannuate from the services of the Bihar Government on completion of sixty years of age. This was followed by the Government resolution No.1500/fo0(2), dated 24.3.2005 (Annexure-1), whereby retirement age of the employees of the Bihar Government was enhanced to sixty years. Clause-6 of the same stated that “;g vkns’k rkRdkfyd izHkko ls ykxw gksxk“. On a perusal of the Government resolution, it appears to me that the same is prospective in its application. The petitioner had already superannuated on 28.2.2005. It thus appears to me, that in view of the terms of the Government resolution, the petitioner was not in service on 24.3.2005 (Annexure-1). In that view of the matter, he cannot get the benefit of the resolution. 3. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/