Judgment 1. In terms of sub-section (d) of Section 81 of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1981 , (hereinafter referred to as the Act), Bihar Regional Development Authority is empowered to make regulations to provide for the salaries, allowances, gratuities and conditions of services of the Officers and Employees of the Authority and disciplinary matters relating to them. There is no dispute that instead of making a regulation to provide for the conditions of service of the Officers and Employees of the Authority, it has adopted the condition of services of the Officers and Employees of the State of Bihar. In terms of the provisions contained in the conditions of service of the Officers and Employees of the State of Bihar, an Officer or an Employee of the State of Bihar attains the age of superannuation upon attaining fifty eight years in such view of the matter, the Officers and Employees of the Authority also attains their age of superannuation upon attaining the age of fifty eight years. 2. The State Government has altered the conditions of service of the Officers and Employees of the State of Bihar and, accordingly, has raised the age of superannuation from fifty eight years to sixty years. In consequence thereof on and from the date of alteration of conditions of service of the Officers and Employees of the State of Bihar, an Officer or an Employee of the State of Bihar attains the age of superannuation upon attaining the age of sixty years. This automatically ought to have had applied to the Authority, inasmuch as the Authority has adopted the conditions of service of Officers and Employees of the State of Bihar. However, at the meeting of the Authority held on 23rd July, 2005 the Authority decided to increase the age of superannuation of its Officers and Employees from fifty eight years to sixty years subject to the approval of the State Government. There is no dispute that the State Government has not either concurred in the proposal to raise the age of superannuation from fifty eight years to sixty years of the Officers and Employees of the Authority nor has refused to concur to the same. 3. There is no dispute that the State Government has not either concurred in the proposal to raise the age of superannuation from fifty eight years to sixty years of the Officers and Employees of the Authority nor has refused to concur to the same. 3. In the present writ petition some of the employees of the Authority are contending that inasmuch as power to make regulations pertaining to conditions of service of Officers and Employees of the Authority vests in the Authority in terms of sub-section (d) of Section 81 of the Act, there is neither any compulsion upon the Authority to obtain any concurrence from the State Government for the purpose of increasing the age of superannuation of the Officers and the Employees of the Authority from fifty eight years to sixty years, nor the State Government can have any say in that matter. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed by or on behalf of the Authority the stand of the petitioners has been supported. 5. Having regard to the fact that the State Government has already increased the age of superannuation of its Officers and Employees from fifty eight years to sixty years and having regard to the fact that the Authority, at one point of time, also decided to increase the age of superannuation of its Officers and employees from fifty eight years to sixty years subject to the approval of the State Government, I felt it necessary to ascertain the views of the State Government and, accordingly, request the Additional Advocate General-ll to convey to me the views of the State Government. The learned junior counsel to Additional Advocate General-ll has reported to me that although the State Government has been approached by the office of the Additional Advocate General-ll, but the State Government has not yet reacted. 6. By reason of such conduct on the part of the State Government in particular in not taking either a positive or negative decision in terms of the Resolution of the Authority dated 23rd July, 2005 and having regard to the fact that it has not reacted to the query of the court made known to it through the office of Additional Advocate General-ll, it appears that the State Government has no further say in the matter. Accordingly, the decision of the Authority to increase the age of superannuation of its Officers and employees from fifty eight years to sixty years, as has already been taken, can be implemented by the Authority and the writ petition is disposed of by directing the Authority to implement the said decision forthwith, with effect from 23rd July, 2005. 7. This disposes of the writ petition.