IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 8046 of 2009 Bindeshwari Prasad Thakur, son of late Yogeshwar Thakur, resident of Village – Sri Nagar, Khairapatti, P S – Sahpur Kamal, Dist – Begusarai - Petitioner Versus 1) The Bihar State Construction Corporation Limited Anisabad Patna through its Managing Director at Anisabad, P O – Anisabad, P S – Anisabad, District – Patna 2) The Managing Director, Bihar State Construction Corporation Limited Anisabad Patna, P O – Anisabad, P S – Anisabad, District – Patna 3) The Director, Child Development Project, Indira Bhawan, Ram Charitra Singh Path, Patna – 1 4) The Child Development Project Officer, Bairiya, Bariarpur, Begusarai - Respondents *** For the petitioner : Mr Narendra Kumar, Advocate For the respondents : Mr Ravindra Kr Shukla, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr Vasant Vikas, AC to SC 23 *** 2 16.07.2009 The petitioner is a permanent employee of the Bihar State Construction Corporation Limited, a State Government undertaking. Like other employees, who have come to this Court earlier and whose writ petitions are pending on the same ground, the petitioner also apprehends that he would be superannuated on the 31st of July 2009 on completion of age of 58 years instead of 60 years. Petitioner is on deputation to the Child Development Project of Government of Bihar. It is not in dispute that the Corporation, instead of framing its own Rules specifying the service conditions of its employees, as far back as in 1976, adopted the Rules framed by the State Government to be applicable to its employees. The State Government took a decision on 24.03.2005 to amend the Bihar Service 2 Code and in particular Rule 73 which provides the age of superannuation. The age of superannuation was increased from 58 years to 60 years by amendment to Rule 73. The said Rule equally applies to the Corporation. It has been submitted and rightly so that no sooner Rule 73 was amended by the State Government, it automatically applied to the Corporation by virtue of referential legislation. It was not a case of legislation by adoption. That being so, petitioner rightly submits that he cannot be superannuated prior to attaining age of 60 years. This has been earlier decided by this Court in CWJC No 6821 of 2009 which was allowed on 23.06.2009 in relation to employees of the same Corporation as well. In fairness to the learned counsel for the Corporation, it must be noted that in an earlier case that is CWJC No 16333 of 2006, this Court had taken a similar view in relation to an employee of the Construction Corporation itself and it had granted some monetary benefit but not all as sought by the petitioner. Petitioner and State have appealed against the judgment being LPA No 492 of 2008 and LPA No 556 of 2008 which are pending but undisputedly the Corporation has filed no appeal assailing that part of the judgment by which this Court held that the age of superannuation of its employee stood extended to 60 years. Corporation has, thus, accepted the said judgment. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed at this stage itself with the aforesaid observation and direction. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)