IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4502 of 2011 PARMANAND SINGH, SON OF LATE RAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF AT MAHADEO MATT, P.O. SALKHUA BAZAR, P.S. SALKHUA, DISTRICT SAHARSA---------------------------------------PETITIONER Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, BIHAR, PATNA 2.THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, BIHAR, PATNA 3.THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR RAJ BEEJ NIGAM LIMITED, MEETAPUR FARM, P.S. JAKKANPUR, DISTRICT PATNA 4.THE COMPANY SECRETARY, BIHAR RAJ BEEJ NIGAM LIMITED, MEETAPUR FARM, P.S. JAKKANPUR, DISTRICT PATNA 5.THE CHAIRMAN, BEEJ NIGAM LIMITED, MEETAPUR FARM, P.S. JAKKANPUR, DISTRICT PATNA--------------------------------------RESPONDENTS ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.Shaishav Kumar, Advocate For the respondent State:Mr.Kamlendra Prasad Singh, AC to GA5 For the Corporation :Mr.Shivaji Pandey, Sr.Advocate, Mr.N.V.Tiwary, Advocate ------ 2. 14.3.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam Limited. The petitioner seeks a direction on the respondent authorities of the Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam Limited to take a decision with regard to granting of extension of service to the petitioner in the light of the decision contained in Board’s Resolution dated 16.4.2010 (Annexure-2) and in accordance with Item No. 5.2 of proceeding dated 17.5.2010 (Annexure-3). The grievance of the petitioner is that although a decision was taken in terms of the aforesaid Resolution of 2 the Board of Directors in the matter relating to extension of service from 58 to 60 years and to constitute a Four Man Committee for making recommendation regarding extension of service of the employees who were due to retire from service but the case of the petitioner has not been put up for consideration before the said committee. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation on the basis of instructions does not deny that the case of the petitioner has not been placed before the said Committee, although reasons have been communicated to him that the petitioner has not been found fit for such extension. In my view, it is proper that the aforesaid Committee should look into the case of the petitioner for the purpose of extension of service from 58 to 60 years as has been done in the case of others who are on the verge of retirement, and there can be no pick and choose in the matter of consideration for extension of service by the authorities of the respondents. In the above circumstances, the writ application is disposed of with a direction to the authorities of the Corporation to put up the case of the petitioner for consideration before the Committee constituted under the 3 aforesaid Resolution and thereafter take appropriate action on the recommendations of the Committee. Let the same be done within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/