IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3563 of 2006 Ajay Kumar Prasad, son of Late Baleshwar Prasad, resident of Village-Nainpur, P.S. Nainpur, District- Mandla presently working as Deputy General Manager, Electric Supply Area, Bhagalpur -------- Petitioner. Versus 1. Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, bailey Road, Patna. 2. Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 3. Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, bailey Road, Patna. ------------ -- Respondents. ----------- 8. 7.11.2008 Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh for the petitioner, and Mrs. Nividita Nirvikar for the respondents. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board to suitably amend the relevant provisions of the Bihar State Electricity Board Service Regulations, 1976 prescribing the age of retirement of its employee of the category of Appendix A. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit. The petitioner is currently posted as Deputy General Manager, Electric Supply Area, Bhagalpur, and claims to be 48 years of age as on 14.5.2007, the date on which he had sworn the supplementary affidavit. The respondent Board issued its resolution dated 29.3.2005 (Annexure-1), whereby it raised the age of superannuation of its employees from 58 years to 60 years with immediate effect. Paragraph 3 of the resolution reads as follows:- 3- “fcgkj jkT; fo|qr cksMZ lsok fu;ekoyh 1976 rFkk fcgkj jkT; 2 fo|qr cksMZ lqj{kk lsok fu;ekoyh esa bl vk”k; ds la”kks/ku dh dkjZokbZ vyx ls dh tk;sxhA” In exercise of the powers conferred by section 79(C) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the Board has framed the aforesaid Regulations prescribing the terms and conditions of service of its employees including category Appendix A, to which the petitioner belongs. The same prescribed the age of retirement of Appendix A employees as 58 years. The petitioner, therefore, seeks a direction to make suitable amendment in the Regulations of 1976 so as to make it consistent with Annexure-1. On the other hand, the Board has taken the stand that the said resolution has been fully implemented and all the employees are now getting the benefit of extension of retirement age, none has suffered any prejudice. It is further submitted on behalf of the Board that the petitioner is today approximately 48 years of age, has not suffered any prejudice so far, and has indeed no cause of action to maintain this writ petition. It is further submitted on behalf of the Board that, in view of the provisions of Section 85 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the 1948 Act stands repealed. Therefore, there is now no occasion to bring about amendment in the Regulations. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. We entirely agree with the contentions advanced on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner has no cause of action to maintain the writ petition. The petitioner has not brought to our notice any circumstances to show that he had suffered any prejudice on account of refusal or failure on 3 the part of the Board to amend the Regulations. On the contrary, the said resolution dated 29.3.2005 (Annexure-1), has been fully implemented and all the employees are getting the benefit of the extension of the retirement age. The petitioner, being approximately 48 years as on date, has no cause of action to maintain the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It goes without saying that it will be open to the petitioner to agitate the issue if he suffers any prejudice on account of the failure or refusal on the part of the Board to amend the Regulations. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar , J.)