W.P. No.1927/2011 Kshatradhari Patel vs. State of M.P. & Ors 20.10.2011 Shri R. B. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri H. K. Upadhyay learned counsel for the respondent no.2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally. The petitioner, who is working as a Peon in the office of the respondent no.2 Madhya Pradesh Hastshilp Evam Hathkardha Vikas Nigam, has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 17.1.2011 passed by the respondent no.1 and the communication dated 19.1.2011 issued by the respondent no.2, as a consequence of the impugned order, Annexure P-3, issued by the State fixing the age of superannuation of all class of its employees as 60 years. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working as a Peon in the office of the respondent no.2 at Jabalpur. It is further stated that by circular dated 26.9.1998 the State Government has extended the age of superannuation of all Class-IV Government employees from 60 to 62 years. However, as far as the employees of the respondent no.2 are concerned, the respondent State has issued the 1 W.P. No.1927/2011 Kshatradhari Patel vs. State of M.P. & Ors impugned order dated 17.1.2011 to the effect that the age of superannuation of all its employees would be 60 years and the respondent no.2, pursuant to the aforesaid order, has also issued the impugned order dated 19.1.2011 in similar terms. In the light of the above, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and the age of superannuation of all Class-IV employees of the respondent no.2 be enhanced to 62 years. However, a perusal of the petition indicates that the petitioner has not laid any foundation in support of the aforesaid contention. The respondent no.2 has filed a return and stated that it is a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and its services are not automatically governed by the circulars, rules and directions issued by the State Government except to the extent that specific directions in that respect are issued or the same are adopted by the Company. It is submitted that the issue as to enhancement of the age of superannuation was taken up in the 100th meeting of the Board of Directors of the respondent no.2 Company held on 30.6.2010 and it was decided that the age of superannuation of all its employees 2 W.P. No.1927/2011 Kshatradhari Patel vs. State of M.P. & Ors would stand enhanced to 60 years. It is further submitted that no specific decision in respect of the age of superannuation to Class-IV employees was taken. A copy of the decision of the Board of Directors has been filed alongwith the return as Annexure R-2. It is stated by the respondent no.2 in the return that after passing of the aforesaid decision, permission of the State Government was sought for extending the age of superannuation of all Class of employees from 58 years to 60 years and the State Government by the impugned order dated 17.1.2011, Annexure P-3, accorded the aforesaid permission enhancing the age from 58 to 60 years in respect of all classes of employees and consequently the respondent no.2 has issued the second impugned order dated 19.1.2011 in compliance thereof extending the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years. The respondent has also stated that the circular dated 26.9.1998 relied upon by the petitioner has no applicability to it as the said circular relates to Class-IV government employees and not the employees of the respondent no.2 which is a registered company under the provisions of the Companies Act. In such circumstances, it is stated 3 W.P. No.1927/2011 Kshatradhari Patel vs. State of M.P. & Ors that as the respondent no.2 has taken a decision to enhance the age of its employees only upto 60 years, the petition filed by the petitioner being misconceived deserves to be dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. From a perusal of the petition as well as the documents filed by the petitioner it is clear that the respondent no.2 is a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and in accordance with the decision of its Board of Directors it has decided to enhance the age of all its employees from 58 to 60 years which decision has been approved by the State Government by the impugned order dated 17.1.2011 and consequential orders have been issued by the respondent no.2 on 19.1.2011. The petitioner has not pointed out any provision on the basis of which it could be said that the impugned orders are statutorily illegal or violative of any statutory or fundamental right of the petitioner moreso in view of the settled law that it is for the employer to determine the age of superannuation and not for the Courts to prescribe the same. In the instant case, as the respondent no.2 who is the employer has determined the age of superannuation as 60 years after approval of the 4 W.P. No.1927/2011 Kshatradhari Patel vs. State of M.P. & Ors State Government and as there is nothing arbitrary or perverse in the aforesaid age of superannuation, I find no reason to interfere in the same. The petition, filed by the petitioner, being misconceived is, accordingly, dismissed. ( R. S. JHA ) J U D G E mms/- 5