IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.79 of 2009 1. THE BIHAR STATE FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PATNA, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BIHAR STATE FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, BETTIAH, 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, BIHAR STATE FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PATNA. -APPELLANTS Versus 1. RAM BALLABH LAL, S/O LATE TIRATH LAL DAS, R/O VILLAGE KHARAUA, P.S. PHULPARAS, DISTRICT-MADHUBANI. 2. STATE OF BIHAR. –RESPONDENT ----- For the Appellants : M/s J.P. Shukla, Sr.Adv & Sanjay Griyaghey For the Respondents : Mr. Prabhas Ranjan 10 07.09.2009 Heard Mr. J.P. Shukla, Sr. Advocate, for the appellants, and Mr. Prabhas Ranjan, for the respondents. The present writ petitioner-respondent no.1 was serving under the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Corporation’). It is not disputed that the Corporation had adopted a resolution that until rules are framed, the age of retirement applicable to the State Government employees will be the age of retirement of the employees of the Corporation. Subsequently the age of 2 retirement of State employees was increased by the State of Bihar from 58 years to 60 years by order dated 24th March, 2005. In view of this, the present writ petitioner-respondent claims that he should have been allowed to continue till 28th February, 2008. As a matter of fact, the Corporation Authority themselves were alive to the aforesaid situation and had passed direction to that effect. Following the aforesaid the present writ petitioner-respondent claims that he should have been allowed to continue beyond the age of 58 years. As a matter of fact, the departmental authorities had also supported the stand of the present writ petitioner-respondent. Be that as it may, the writ petitioner- respondent was made to retire with effect from 28th February, 2006. Thereafter, he made representation in April, 2006, seeking permission to continue till age of 60 years. The same representation fell on deaf ear. In the meantime, some of the co-employee had filed writ petition which was allowed but since such co-employee had attained the age of 60 years during the pendency of the writ petition, there was direction that salary should be paid for the two years. Following 3 similar directions, in the present case the learned single Judge has given direction that the present respondent (writ petitioner) should be paid salary for two years. This order is the subject matter of the appeal at the instance of the Corporation. The learned counsel for the appellants has raised the contention that in the other writ petition, the person had come to Court before he had attained the age of 60 years whereas in the present case, the writ petitioner-respondent had filed the writ petition after he had completed the age of 60 years. It is, therefore, contended that the principle of acquiescence should be applied and the direction given by the learned single Judge giving payment of salary for two years should be quashed. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that since writ petitioner-respondent had made representation he was awaiting response from the Corporation and it cannot be said that he has waived his right to continue till the age of 60 years. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that by applying the principle of ‘no work, no pay’ 4 the direction given by the learned single Judge should be quashed. The counsel further stated that the financial health of the State is not good and, therefore, it will be difficult to pay the entire amount to the writ petitioner- respondent. Keeping in view all the aspects, we feel that interest of justice will be served by directing the Corporation to pay half of the salary. It is, however, made clear that it shall be deemed that if the person had retired at the age of 60 years and that he will be entitled to all retrial benefits such as gratuity etc. We direct that instead of payment of salary for two years, 50% will be paid to the writ petitioner-respondent. The Letters Patent Appeal is allowed in part with the above exception. No order as to costs. (P.K. Misra, CJ.) (Anjana Prakash, J.) AAhmad