D.G.R. Patnaik, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties and with their consent, this application is disposed of at the stage of admission.
2. Petitioner's prayer in this writ application is for quashing the letter dated 01.06.2005 (Annexure-8) purporting to declare thereby that the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years would not be available to the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant under the respondent Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. Though initially as per the service conditions, the age of retirement of the employees of the Corporation was 58 years, but by a circular issued by the State Government on 24.03.2005 (Annexure-3), the age of superannuation was enhanced from 58 years to 60 years for the Government employees. The respondent Corporation also was required to adopt the circular of the State Government and extend the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation to its employees.
Several representations were made by the employees of the respondent Corporation before the concerned authorities of the Corporation for extending the age of their superannuation in consonance with the circular of the State Government.
Learned counsel adds that despite the representations, the concerned authorities of the respondent Corporation did not take a final decision. The petitioner in the mealtime, was made to retire on his attaining the age of 58 years on 31.07.2005.
4. Learned Counsel explains further that being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent Corporation to give the benefit of the enhanced age of retirement in consonance with he benefit given to the State Government employees, the aggrieved employees filed writ applications before the Patna High Court. Their grievances upon being considered, a Division Bench of che Patna High Court, by its judgement passed in L.P.A. No 829 of 2007 along with analogous cases, allowed the appeals filed by the employees and directed the respondent Corporation to pay the salaries payable to the employees who were made to retire between 24'' March, 2005 till 29th July, 2006, treating, them to have served until the age of 60 years with a further declaration the the employees of the respondent Corporation are entitled to serve up to the age of 60 years.
Learned counsel explains further that the petitioner was made to retire on 31.07.2005 and his case also falls within the ambit of the scope of similarly situated employees who had gained the benefit of the judgement passed in the aforementioned L.P. As by the Patna High Court. According to the learned Counsel, the ratio as decided in the L.P.A. No. 829 of 2007 by the Patna High Court has recently beer followed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3435 of 2006 in the case of Bal Bhadra Singh v. Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and Ors.
5. As it appears from the relevant facts of the case, in terms of Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code, the age of superannuation of the Government employees was 58 years Consequent upon the amendment of Rule 73 of the Code, the age of superannuation of the officers and employees of the State Government was enhanced from 58 years to 60 years and a notification to this effect was issued on 24.03.2005 by the State of Bihar.
However, since the provisions of the Bihar Service Code were not ipso facto applicable to the respondent Corporation, a resolution was adopted by the respondent Corporation on 21st May, 1973 to the effect that till such time as the Service Code, Financial Rules etc. are framed by the Corporation, the provisions made in the Bihar Service Code, as applicable to the State Government employees, be adopted for the employees of the Corporation.
Thus, as per the resolution, until the Service Code and Financial Rules are framed by the Corporation, the Bihar Service Code, as applicable to the State Government employees was deemed to apply to the employees of the Corporation. The respondent Corporation took a final decision on this issue by passing a Resolution on 29th July, 2006 enhancing the age of superannuation of its employees from 58 years to 60 years. However, even as observed by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in L.P.A. No 829 of 2007, the Resolution of the Corporation dated 21st May, 1973, admittedly had not been withdrawn till 28th July 2006.
6. Upon analyzing the aforesaid facts, the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the aforementioned L.P. As had observed as follows:..While on and from 24th March, 2005, in terms of the Service Code as applicable to the State Government employee, the State Government employees became entitled to serve upto the age of 60 years, since by that time no Service Code or Financial Rules had been framed by the Corporation, in terms of the Resolution dated 21st May, 1973 the officers and employee of the Corporation became entitled to the same benefit.
On the basis of the above observations, the Division Bench of the Patna High Court had declared that those employees of the Corporation who were made to retire in between 24th March, 2005 to 29th July, 2006 were entitled to continue in service till their age of 60 years and accordingly they were entitled to their salaries till the age of 60 years.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents would wart to raise a controversy by referring to a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh : 2006(11) SCC 464 and would want to explain that as per the ratio decided in the aforesaid judgement of the Supreme Court, only such employees who had approached the Court before their retirement, could get the benefit of the enhanced age and not those who approached the Court after retirement.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would want to distinguish the judgement of the case of Jal Nigam (Supra) and explain that the facts of the case of Jal Nigam would indicate that, by the time the circular was issued by the Government and the same was adopted by the employer, the employees had already retired and on the basis of such circular, the retired employees had sought to take the benefits of the enhanced age of retirement, which, under the circumstances, was no allowed, but such is not the case of the petitioner.
9. I am satisfied that the judgement in the case of Jal Nigam, as referred to by the counsel for the respondents, would not apply to the facts of the case of the petitioner in the present case. On the other hand, the facts of the petitioner's case is identical to the fact; of the case of the writ petitioners in the L.P.As filed and decided before the Division Bench of the Patna High Court.
10. In the circumstances, this writ application is finally disposed of in the same terms and the same directions as contained in the judgement of the Patna High Court passed in L.P.A. No. 829 of 2007 and analogous appeals. Since the petitioner has already superannuated, therefore the decision will be implemented by way of paying the salary, treating as if the petitioner has served till the age of superannuation, as motioned in the decision of the Patna High Court. All the consequential retirement benefits will be made available to the petitioner accordingly. The dec sion in the terms stated above shall have to be taken and implemented by the corcened authorities of the respondents within two months from the date of receipt production of a copy of this order. The petitioner may present a certified copy of this order before the Respondent No. 2 along with the copy of the judgement of the Patna High Court passed in L.P.A. No. 829 of 2007 and analogous cases.
With these observations, this writ application is disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondents.