IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14812 of 2010 SUBHNATH PASWAN, SON OF LATE RAMDEO PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE/P.O.- PRAHLADPUR, VIA- SILOUR, P.S.- MUSAHARI, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR :--- PETITIONER . Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER CUM WELFARE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WELFARE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. BIHAR STATE SCHEDULED CAST CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. PATNA. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MALYANIL BHAWAN, BUDHA BUDHA COLONY, PATNA. 4. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE SCHEDULED CAST CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. PATNA, MALYANIL BHAWAN, BUDHA COLONY, PATNA :--- RESPONDENTS. with CWJC No.14895 of 2010 HIRA SAHU, SON OF LATE BISHUNI SAHU, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- SIPARA, P.O.- DHELWAN, P.S.- PHULWARISHARIFF, DIST. PATNA :--- PETITIONER . Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER CUM WELFARE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WELFARE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. BIHAR STATE SCHEDULED CAST CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., PATNA. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MALYANIL BHAWAN, BUDHA BUDHA COLONY, PATNA. 4. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE SCHEDULED CAST CO- OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. PATNA, MALYANIL BHAWAN, BUDHA COLONY, PATNA :--- RESPONDENTS with CWJC No.14940 of 2010 GANGA CHOUDHRY, SON OF LATE DALIP CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SARGATTI, P.O.- GARKHA, P.S.- GARKHA, DISTRICT- SARAN :---- PETITIONER. . Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER CUM WELFARE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WELFARE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. BIHAR STATE SCHEDULED CAST CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., PATNA. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MALYANIL BHAWAN, BUDHA BUDHA COLONY, PATNA. 4. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE SCHEDULED CAST CO- OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., PATNA, MALYANIL BHAWAN, BUDHA COLONY, PATNA :--- RESPONDENTS. ----------- - 2 - For the petitioners : Mr. S.K.Ghosarvey, Advocate. For the Corporation : Mr. M.K.Thakur, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ray Saurabh Nath, A.C. to A.A.G.-4. ====== 3. 09.09.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the Bihar State Scheduled Caste Cooperative Development Corporation Limited, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”). 2. Petitioners superannuated while serving in the Corporation with effect from 31.12.2009/31.01.2010/31.04.2009. They have filed these writ petitions praying, inter alia, to direct the Corporation to grant them the benefit of the extended retirement age with effect from 31.05.2010, the date on which the Corporation passed order enhancing the age of its employees to 60 years. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Corporation adopted Bihar Service Code (hereinafter referred to as the „Code”) in the year 1979. Rule 73 of the Code provides that employee shall superannuate at the age of 58 years. Under resolution of the State Government dated 24.3.2005 the State Government amended Rule 73 of the Code by fixing 60 years as the date of retirement of its employees. Counsel for - 3 - the petitioner submitted that as the Corporation had adopted the Code in 1979 itself the amended provisions of the Code stood applicable to the employees of the Corporation as well with effect from the date of resolution of the State Government i.e. 24.3.2005. In support of such submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Lala Nand Kumar Vs. The Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2008(1) PLJR 579. 3. Counsel for the Corporation has opposed the prayer. He states that Rule 73 of the Code may have been amended by the State Government under resolution dated 24.3.2005, (Annexure-2) extending the retirement age of the employees to 60 years but Corporation never passed any order in the light of such resolution of the Government, as such, the resolution will have no bearing on the status of the employees of the Corporation until the Corporation passed the order extending the age of superannuation of its employees. He further submitted that the Managing Director of the Corporation has extended the retirement age of its employees under office order dated 31st May, 2010 - 4 - with immediate effect, as such, petitioners who superannuated on 31.12.2009/31.01.2010/31.04.2009 cannot be allowed the benefit to the office order dated 31.5.2010. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the Corporation having extended the retirement age of its employees to 60 years with effect from 31.5.2010, petitioners who superannuated on 31.12.2009/ 31.01.2010/31.04.2009 cannot be allowed the benefit of the extended retirement age and in such view of the matter the writ petitions are dismissed. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)