IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.84 of 2010 Rudra Kant Mishra S/o Late Jaynath Mishra, R/o Vill.- Tatuar, P.S. Manigachhi, Distt.- Darbhanga. -------- Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Agriculture Production Commissioner, Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Bihar, Patna. 3. Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam Ltd., through Managing Director, Mithapur Agriculture Form Campus, Mithapur, Patna. 4. Board of Directors, through its Chairman, Bihar Beej Nigam Ltd., Vikash Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna. 5. Managing Director, Mithapur Agriculture Farm Campus, Mithapur, Patna . 6. Company Secretary, Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam Ltd., Mithapur Agriculture Farm Campus, Mithapur, Patna . 7. Chief of Finance, Mithapur Agriculture Farm Campus, Mithapur, Patna. -------- Respondents/Respondents ----------- For the Appellant :- Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Adv. For the Bihar Beej Nigam Ltd. :- Mr. Shivaji Pandey, Adv. For the Respondent No.1 :- Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey ---------- 2 02.02.2010 Though this matter was listed for admission, on consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is finally heard. Heard Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Ajay Kumar for the appellant and Mr. Shivaji Pandey, learned counsel for the Bihar State Seeds Corporation Ltd. as also Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Pleader-19. 2 The singular grievance that was agitated before the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 16129 of 2009 is that the present appellant, an employee of the aforesaid Corporation, was entitled to superannuate at the age of 60 years on the foundation that there has been an amendment of the Bihar Service Code as a consequence of which under Rule 73 the date of superannuation has been enhanced to 60 years. Learned single Judge has referred to the said factual matrix and the resolution of the Corporation wherein it has been resolved that the employees would be retired at the age of 58 years. On a perusal of Annexure-B/1 to the writ application, it is quite clear that the Corporation has declined to enhance the age of superannuation. Submission of Mr. Mahto, learned senior counsel for the appellant is that the Corporation is making profit and therefore it is obligatory on its part to enhance the age of superannuation. On the contrary, Mr. Pandey has submitted that this Court should not direct the Corporation by way of 3 mandamus to hike the age of superannuation. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasonings ascribed by the learned single Judge and the submissions put forth by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that in absence of any rule or adoption of Rule 73 by way of resolution, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to superannuate the appellant at the age of 60 years. In the result, we do not perceive any merit in this appeal and accordingly the same stands dismissed. There would be no order as to costs. Rsh (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)