- (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that the petitioner's services have been brought to an end illegally and unauthorisedly at the age of 58 years, but, in fact, the petitioner 'sage of retirement is 60 years, as per the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who has heavily relied upon several decisions rendered by the Hon'ble High Court at Patna in C.W.J.C. No. 16222 of 2006, decided on 18th of March, 2008 as well as in Letters Patent Appeal No. 829 of 2007 with L.P.A. No. 350 of 2007, C.W.J.C. No. 1241 of 2006 with C.W.J.C. No. 5945 of 2006 and with other writ petitions, order dated 17th of January, 2008 (Annexure -4 to the memo of petition) wherein it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Patna that as the respondent - Corporation has not drafted and enacted their own regulations and rules, the rules which are applicable to the State Government employees are also applicable to the employees of the respondent -Corporation and, therefore, their age of superannuation will be 60 years because the State Government has enhanced the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years and this benefit was given by the aforesaid decisions to the employees of the respondent -Corporation. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Patna passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6821 of 2009, dated 23rd of June, 2009 as well as decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Patna in C.W.J. C. No. 848 of 2009 dated 6th of August, 2009, wherein also all the earlier judgments have been referred and it was held by the very same respondents that the age of superannuation of the employees of the respondent -Corporation will be sixty years and it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is similar to all these aforesaid petitioners. Different cases have already been decided by the competent Courts against which no appeal has been preferred by the respondents.
(2.) IT is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that over and above aforesaid decisions, there are several other decisions which are not less than two dozen in numbers wherein it has been decided that the age of superannuation of the employees of respondent -Corporation is sixty years and not 58 years. The petitioner was appointed as Senior Clerk with the respondents on 1st of July, 1989 as per Annexure -3 to the memo of petition). Thus, the petitioner is a direct employee of the respondent - Corporation and the rules and regulations, applicable to the Government employees, are also applicable to the employees of the respondent - Corporation and as the Government has increased the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years employees of the respondent -Corporation have also to be extended the benefit of this increased age of superannuation by the aforesaid decisions and, therefore, similar order may be passed in this matter also. I have heard learned counsel for the respondent who has submitted that it is true that in several matters the competent court has decided the age of superannuation of retirement of respondent - Corporation as sixty years and initially, the respondent had preferred a Latest Patent Appeal which by the respondent -Corporation lost and thereafter, the said matter further came by way of Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court, under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Thus, by several decisions, as stated here - inabove, now the age of retirement of respondent -Corporation is sixty years.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid submissions and looking to the aforesaid decisions, which are also annexed with this matter in a writ petition as well as in two different supplementary -affidavits by the petitioner and also looking to the fact that the respondent -Corporation has not enacted or brought into force their own separate rules and, have decided that the age of superannuation of the employees of respondent -Corporation to be sixty years and not 58 years, I direct the respondent - Corporation to treat the age of superannuation of the petitioner as 60 years and not 58 years and all the consequential benefits should be extended to the petitioner.;