IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14689 of 2007 Pramod Narayan Pandey, Son of Late Ram Padarath Pandey, resident of Village-Katarmala, P.S.-Goroul, District-Vaishali. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through its Cane Secretary, Cane Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Bihar State Sugar Corporation Limited through its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan (2nd Floor), East Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800004. 3. The Cane Commissioner-cum-the Managing Director, Bihar State Sugar Corporation Limited, Udyog Bhawan (2nd Floor), East Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800004. -Respondents. WITH MJC No.2061 of 2009 SUO MOTU CONTEMPT AGAINST M.D, BIHAR STATE SUGAR CORPORATION WITH CWJC No. 17313 of 2008 Shiv Shankar Singh, Son of Late Chhatrapati Singh, resident of village & P.O.- Simri, P.S.-Bihta, District-Patna. -Petitioner. Versus 4. The State of Bihar through its Cane Secretary, Cane Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Bihar State Sugar Corporation Limited through its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan (2nd Floor), East Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800004. 6. The Cane Commissioner-cum-the Managing Director, Bihar State Sugar Corporation Limited, Udyog Bhawan (2nd Floor), East Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800004. -Respondents. WITH MJC No. 2064 of 2009 SUO MOTU CONTEMPT AGAINST M.D., BIHAR STATE SUGAR CORPORATION ----------- 03 11.08.2009 It is regrettable that in spite of judgment of the Apex Court on the issue specifically involving the Bihar State Sugar Corporation Limited as far back as in the year 2000 numerous judgments of this Court involving the same Corporation right up to C.W.J.C. No. 15413 of 2004, judgment dated 26.07.2007 and C.W.J.C. No. 11401 of 2007, judgment dated 26.09.2007 and many Letters Patent judgment in between all holding in favour of the employees of the Corporation that - 2 - their age of superannuation would be 60 years and not 58 years. The Corporation still is to comply with decision making process and the paper formality of issuing notification in this regards. The consequence is that every employee on attaining the age of 58 years notwithstanding the judgments aforesaid is made to retire and is required to come to this Court and get an order for either continuance or reinstatement till attaining the age of 60 years. This is a very unhealthy practice and defies rule of law. It is a direct challenge to the authority of Court to deal with the matters and declare law binding on the subordinates. In other words, this is a gross contempt. It is because of this attitude of the Corporation that this Court was persuaded to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings. Regrettably, better sense has not yet dawned upon the Corporation, still they have abundance of confusions and still they have to take a decision and issue appropriate notification in this regard, as disclosed in their show cause in the contempt proceedings. This is contempt compounded. In view of the judgments of this Court starting from the year 2000 and the views of all Courts at all levels, that is, Single Judge of the High Court and the Apex Court taking consistent view the Corporation finds it difficult to abide by them. The two writ petitioners of these two writ petitions were made to superannuate first on 30.06.2007 and the other on 31.07.2007. Now, in the show cause as filed, it is stated that the Managing Director has issued office order in compliance of orders of the Apex Court. This Court in LPA and the writ petition extended the age of superannuation of the two writ petitioners on attaining the age of 60 years. This is again - 3 - contempt compounded. It clearly shows that notwithstanding the law being reiterated by Courts again and again, the benefit of judgment, which is not a judgment in personam but a judgment in rem is not being passed automatically on all employees. It is only those employees who are getting the benefit, who come to this Court, if there was any bona fide on part of the respondent-Corporation then immediately on coming to know that petitioner had been wrongly superannuated, it was the duty of the respondent-Managing Director of the Corporation to immediately recall them in service. I must at this stage notice one contention as made on behalf of the respondent-Managing Director, he states that the Corporation is dependent on funds being made available by the State Government and therefore so long as the State Government does not grant approval specifically extending the age of superannuation, notwithstanding the judgments of this Court and the Apex Court, the same cannot be done. Learned counsel for the State joins the counsel for the Corporation in resisting implementation of judgments of this Court. The State counsel states that the State would not permit those Corporations to increase the age of superannuation of its employees which are not profit making organization since last five years. In other words, though the Corporation is an autonomous independent statutory authority the State chooses to step in and control its activities in all its spheres. It assumes responsibility for the Corporation and its finance but when matters come to this Court directing the State to pay the dues of employees of Corporation immediately, the State gets up and takes - 4 - stand that Corporation being independent corporate entity State has no liability in this regard. This jckyll & hyde attitude of the State is not understandable. This diabolical stand is not understandable. The State has deep and pervasive control over a Corporation and it only acts through its Director, who is independent statutory authority to take decisions de hors the Directors by administrative instruction. The Corporation cannot be bound to sing to the tune of the State. Whatever State wants to achieve through the Corporation or wants to restrict the operation of the Corporation it has to do through its Directors in a duly constituted meeting of the Board. State is not a super authority over the autonomous statutory Corporation that is the law of the land. If State wants to interfere in the working of the Corporation on one hand then it must accept full responsibility including financial responsibility of the Corporation on the other hand, that is not one way traffic. If State took a benevolent decision to adopt an abandoned orphan then it is for the State to provide its upkeep. Having adopted an abandoned orphan, it cannot turn around and abandoned the orphan, it must accept full responsibility thereof. However, in the hope that the respondent-State would realize their legal responsibility in this regard and in view of the fact that the Managing Director has issued office orders extending the age of superannuation of the two writ petitioners to 60 years, the rule in contempt matter is discharged. It is, however, made clear that the order cannot be retroactive inasmuch as petitioners would be deemed to be in continuous service for - 5 - all practicable purposes and would superannuate only on attaining the age of 60 years in accordance with law. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of in view of the said office order, which is Annexure-A dated 06.08.2009 to the show cause. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)