IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3267 of 2009 JASWANT SINGH, son of late Arjun Singh, resident of Pakkbari, Bhikhana Pahari, P.S. Pirbahore, District – Patna. ________________ Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Joint Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Director, Indigenous Medicines, Bihar, Patna. 6. The Principal. Government Ayurved College, Patna. ____________________ Respondents ----------- 02. 18.03.2009 Petitioner has superannuated after attaining the age of 60 years. He was holding the post of a Professor at the Government Ayurved College, Patna. His date of superannuation is 31.12.2008. The reason he has filed the present writ application is because he wants a direction upon the respondent State to allow him to continue till the age of 62 years on the basis of a notification contained in annexure-3 and annexure-4. Submission of the learned counsel is that by way of notification dated 4th April, 2007 which is annexure-3, by amending the rules of Executive Business 1979 some branches relating to health education and indigenous medicine were merged into what is known as Department of Health with a common seal, name etc. as would be evident from reading of the said notification. In other words, by virtue of this notification all branches including indigenous medicines were brought under the control of the Health Department. In the year 2007 itself in exercise of power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India the Government also decided to - 2 - enhance the age of retirement for the cadre belonging to the Bihar Health Services as well as Bihar Medical Education Service. In both the cases the age of retirement was enhanced to 62 as a matter of policy decision for these two cadres alone. Contention of the petitioner is that by virtue of merger of all the branches including indigenous medicines under the Health Department even the service of the petitioner should be extended to 62 years. A plain reading of annexure-3 and annexure-4 does not make out a case for such a direction to be issued. The service condition of the present petitioner would be governed by what is laid down by the State Government for such service. Merely because the date of retirement of certain branches in the Medical Department has been enhanced for the reasons best known to the Government a direction cannot be issued in case of present petitioner when there is no such policy decision taken in regard to indigenous medicines. Such a decision can at best be left to the wisdom of policy makers and it is not for this Court to enhance the age of retirement. The writ application is misplaced and is dismissed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)