IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8429 of 2010 UPENDRA LAL KARN, S/O- LATE HARIKANT LAL, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- GOSAIAN TOOLA EAST, P.O.- PATLIPUTRA, P.S.- PATLIPUTRA, DISTRICT- PATNA. . Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT,L GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 6. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 7. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, SHASTRINAGAR (BSEDC), PATNA-23. 8. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED SHASTRINAGAR (BSEDC), PATNA-23. 9. THE MANAGER (MARKETING) CUM-SECRETARY, THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED SHASTRINAGAR (BSEDC), PATNA. ----------- 2. 21.06.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the State Government dated 10.2.2010, Annexure-8, whereunder it has rejected the proposal of the Bihar State Electronics Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”) to enhance the retiral age of its employees from 58 to 60 years on the ground that the Corporation was incurring loss during the last five years. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Corporation took a decision that as it is earning profit for the last three years, the age of retirement of the employees be extended from 58 to 60 years. The decision was, however, made subject to the approval of the Bureau of Public Enterprises. For obtaining the approval of the Bureau the decision of the Corporation was sent to the Industries Department of the State Government. Later, the Bureau of Public Enterprises considered the matter and decided not to extend the age of retirement of the employees of the Corporation as the Corporation did not earn profit during the last five years and such decision has been communicated to the Managing Director of the Corporation under the impugned letter of the State Government dated 10.2.2010, Annexure-8. 4. I do not see any illegality in the impugned decision of the Bureau communicated to the Corporation under letter dated 10.2.2010, Annexure-8 and the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)