Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the petitioners, counsel for Bihar Hindi Granth Academy and counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is a registered union and have filed the present writ application in their representative capacity challenging the decision of the State Government dated 26.3.2003 and is contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application. 3. The basic thrust of the agrument of the petitioner is that the letter contained in Annexure-3 issued by the Deputy Secretary from Department of Higher Education cannot be issued to the detriment of the interest of the employees of Bihar Hindi Granth Academy (hereinafter to be refered to as the Academy) in violation of the bye laws of the Academy. They contend that the letter in question is an unnecessary interference in the working of the Academy and has been issued beyond the powers which the Department exercises in matters relating to the Academy. 4. The Academy was created in the /ear 1972 by a Government resolution of 1970 and has been registered under the Registration of Societies Act, 1860 dated 16th September, 1970. Petitioners hav brought the bye laws of the society on record which is Annexure-1. On 29.5.1972 the Sub-Committee of the Academy formulated the service conditions of the employees of the Academy. This does not relate to people on deputation with the Academy who are otherwise State Government employees. In terms of this subcommittees recommendation, which is contained in Annexure-2, it was decided that the basic service conditions of the employees of the Academy will be governed by the same service conditions which is applicable to the State Governemnt employees but the sub-committee further resolved that in matters of pension the same will not be payable to their employees they will be entitled to contributory provident fund and in matters of retirement their age shall be 62 years, which may be extended to 65 years in some cases. This resolution of the sub-committee came to be ratified or approved by the Executive Committee in its meeting dated 15.6.1973. Since 1973 this terms and conditions of service have been implemented and occupying the field in the matters relating to the service conditions of the employees of the Academy. 5. This resolution of the sub-committee came to be ratified or approved by the Executive Committee in its meeting dated 15.6.1973. Since 1973 this terms and conditions of service have been implemented and occupying the field in the matters relating to the service conditions of the employees of the Academy. 5. It is only of 26th March, 2003 that the State Government specially the Department of Higher Education, Government of Bihar vide Annexure-3 issued a direction that the age of retirement of the employees of the Academy shall be in consonance with the State Governments employees and their age of retirement shall be 58 years. This letter of the State Government which is the impugned letter has been put into effect and certain employees have been retired at the age of 58 years. 6. Counsel for the petitioners challenges this decision on the ground that the power which has been exercised by the State Government is not only illegal but arbitrary. The petitioners does not dispute that the State Government does have a control and can issue directions to the Academy but that power is not extended to the area which governs the service conditions of the employees or the Academy. The Academy has its autonomy and by virtue of being a registered society under the Act which is governed by its bye laws and the decision taken by the Academy by virtue of recommendation of the sub-committee in the year 1972 the age of retirement of the employees continued to be 62 years. Therefore, by virtue of issuance of a letter this age of retirement cannot be curtailed or modified. 7. Counsel for the Academy as well as the State Government drew my attention to the bye laws specially with regard to the chapter which deals with "SAMANYA NIYAMAWALI" in terms of Rule 5 sub-rules (5), (6) and (7), they contend that the necessary powers is vested in the State Government to give directions or even turn down any resolution adopted by the Academy in the interest of the Academy and also to issue such directions from time to time with regard to the financial as well as the working of the Academy to meet its object. These basic powers are surely there and, therefore, has been taken note off. 8. These basic powers are surely there and, therefore, has been taken note off. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners thereafter submits that these are general powers which have been conferred upon the State Government but .these powers cannot be exercised as a tool for interfering in every action or decision making of the Academy. These powers have to be exercised for issuance of over all directions in the interest of the Academy to meet the objects for which the society was created and these powers cannot be utilised as a ways and means to interfere in the day to day working, as well as the power which has been vested in the Academy to formulate its Rules in relation to the appointment of the employees of the Academy or their service conditions. 9. One thing surely emerges from the perusal of the writ application and the documents which have been brought on record is that the sub-committee of the Academy had as far back as in the year 1972 did formulate some service conditions for its employees. The same came to be ratified by the Executive Committee rn the year 1973 and it has been in operation all these years till the State Government issued the letter contained in Annexure-3. The reason or the background for issuance of such letter directing the Academy to reduce the age of retirement of its employees to 58 years given in the impugned letter is that since other employees of the State Government are superannuating at the age of 58 years, therefore, to bring parity even the Academy employees should retire at the age of 58 years. But one thing which is not understood is that even though the age of retirement of the employees of the State Government was 55 years earlier or 58 years subsequently, vide resolution or the bye laws the employees of the Academy continued to serve as such till they reached the age of 62 years. This was done probably because they did not get complete protection or benefit which was available to the State Government employees. The difference in the age of retirement has always existed in so far as it related to the employees of the Academy and after more than 34 years the object of bringing parity is not understood at this stage. 10. The difference in the age of retirement has always existed in so far as it related to the employees of the Academy and after more than 34 years the object of bringing parity is not understood at this stage. 10. Another aspect which needs to be taken note of is that the Academy does enjoy certain amount of autonomy in its working and decision making. The Executive Committee as per the bye laws contain a large number of nominees of the State Government. If the State Government was of the opinion that some kind of parity ought to be brought about, it ought to have sent a message to the Executive Committee to take a decision in this regard and make necessary recommendations to the State Government that they would now like to reduce the age of retirement of its employees from 62 years to 58 years or may be 60 years which is the age of retirement now. The process should have begun from within and should not be forced from outside. The procedure which has been adopted to bring out parity is not only objectionable but also illegal. The powers of the State Government which have been taken note of in the bye laws are not to be exercised in the manner in which it has been done in the present case. A mere direction issued from the Department of Higher Education is not good enough to bring out changes in the bye laws of the society. As already stated above the amendments to the bye laws should have been proposed by the society as such and if the State Government did not accept that proposal or required any modification then while exercising its power of superintendence or control could have accordingly suggested those changes or modification. 11. Since the method and the methodology, which have been adopted by the State Government to change the age of retirement of the employees of the Academy has been found to be beyond its powers, therefore, this Court has no hesitation in striking down the same and accordingly the direction dated 26.3.2003 contained in Annexure-3 is quashed and set aside. 12. Since the method and the methodology, which have been adopted by the State Government to change the age of retirement of the employees of the Academy has been found to be beyond its powers, therefore, this Court has no hesitation in striking down the same and accordingly the direction dated 26.3.2003 contained in Annexure-3 is quashed and set aside. 12. But virtue of this decision the employees of the Academy shall continue to be governed by the earlier service conditions and it will be deemed that they will continue to retire at the age of 62 years and not at the age of 58 years which has been done by the State Government by Annexure-3. Accordingly the decision dated 26.3.2003 contained in Annexure-3 is quashed. 13. This writ application accordingly stands allowed with the above direction and observations.