IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6966 of 2009 DR.SHALIGRAM PRASAD SAH, son of Late-Jagarnath Sah, resident of Mohalla-New Colony, Thakurganj, P.S.-Thakurganj, District-Kishanganj …….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Director Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Deputy Director-cum-Deputy Secretary, Department of Panmchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Additional Secretary to Government Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Zila Parishad, Kishanganj through the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer. 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Kishanganj. …….Respondents. ----------- 03. 09.07.2009 The petitioner was working as a Medical Officer in the Zila Parishad, Kishanganj. It is not in dispute that the service conditions of the employees of the Zila Parishad is governed by Bihar Panchayat Samiti Rules-1964 wherein option is given to employees to opt for service conditions under the said rules or the Bihar Service Code. It is not in dispute that petitioner is governed by the provisions of Bihar Service Code and in so far as is relevant Rule 73 thereof which provides for the age of superannuation of State Government employees under the Bihar Service Code. With effect from 24.03.2005 the State Government decided to enhance the age of superannuation of its employees from 58 years to 60 years which was ultimately accepted by the Zila Parishad in view 2 of the judgment of this Court holding that the said was binding on the Zila Parishad which judgment is since reported in 2006(4) PLJR 308. The State Government then took a decision which was communicated on 25.02.2009 wherein Rule 73 was once again amended. It now inter alia provided that the age of superannuation of Medical Officers would now stand increase to 62 years from 60 years. This issue came up before this Court once again and in the case of Bihar Rajya Zila Parishad Karamchari Mahasangh and anothers versus The State of Bihar and others since reported in 2006(4) PLJR 308, this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4876 of 2009 which was allowed on 17.04.2009 held that by virtue of the aforesaid exercise the age of superannuation of employees of the Medical Officers of the Zila Parishad would stand extended to 62 years. Notwithstanding the aforesaid the petitioner was made to retire on 30.05.2009 on attaining the age of 60. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Zila Parishad in which the facts as noted above are not disputed. What is stated is that there are no guidelines issued by the Government in this regard to the Zila Parishad and as such it has not implemented the decision of the Government in respect of the petitioner. To say the least, this is an apology for a stand. It only shows that the Zila Parishad and the concerned Officer do not think 3 themselves to be competent to take a decision in the matter. It is only a false pretence to deny the legitimate right of the petitioner. Once the Government has taken a decision and this Court decides the issue, I do not understand what “Guidelines” the Respondents seek. In such a situation I have no option but to direct that the petitioner will be deemed to be continuing in service with all consequential benefits and would superannuate only on completion of 62 years of age in accordance with law. The writ application is allowed with a cost of Rs. 5,000/-(five thousand) which should be paid by the Zila Parishad to the petitioner within one month from today and receipt thereof filed in this Court. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)