ORDER R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard the parties finally. 2. Petitioner has challenged the letter No. 472 dated 18.7.2005 (Annexure 2) issued by the Hazaribagh Mines Board (Board for short), informing him that he is going to superannuate from service w.e.f. 31.7.2005 on attaining the age of 58 years. Petitioners case is that the Board decided to enhance the age of superannuation to 60 years but it has arbitrarily decided to apply the said decision to the employees retiring after 14.8.2006, whereas as per the Government Resolution dated 13.4.2005 the age of superannuation is enhanced to 60 years w.e.f. 20.1.2005. 3. Mr. P. P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner submitted that by Resolution dated 26.10.2004 (Annexure 1) the age of superannuation of the State Government employees has been enhanced from 58 years to 60 years. He submitted that copy of such Resolution was circulated to various Government Departments and other institutions which means that the said Resolution was applicable to the Board. 4. The stand of the State on this, is that the said Resolution is only with regard to the State Government employees. Copy of the Resolution was circulated as the State Government employees are also posted on deputation in various institutions. This does not mean that the said Resolution automatically applies to all the institutions or the Board. 5. It has been specifically mentioned in the said Resolution that the age of superannuation of State Government employees was enhanced. In my opinion, only the circulation of copies of the said Resolution would not mean that the age of superannuation of employees of all the institutions or the Board was enhanced, under the said Resolution dated 26.10.2004, automatically. 6. Mr. Roy then referred to the Resolution dated 13.4.2005 (Annexure 4) to show that the Urban Development Department of the Government of Jharkhand has decided to enhance the age of superannuation of the employees of Municipal Corporation/Municipality and Notified Area from 58 years to 60 years w.e.f. 2.1.2005. Referring to the Resolution No. 1 of the meeting of the Board dated 30.12.2006, he submitted that on the basis of the said Resolutions dated 13.4.2005, the Board has decided to enhance the age of superannuation but the effective date has been arbitrarily fixed as 14.8.2006 from when the age of retirement of one Ajitanand Prasad was enhanced. 7. Referring to the Resolution No. 1 of the meeting of the Board dated 30.12.2006, he submitted that on the basis of the said Resolutions dated 13.4.2005, the Board has decided to enhance the age of superannuation but the effective date has been arbitrarily fixed as 14.8.2006 from when the age of retirement of one Ajitanand Prasad was enhanced. 7. The stand of the Urban Development Department, inter alia, is that the Board is an autonomous body and the State has no role to play with regard to administration, financial liability, mode of appointment, etc. The Urban Development Department is not responsible for any order passed by the Board. Under Section 11 of The Hazaribagh Mines Board Act, 1936 (the Act for short) all the powers regarding terms and condition of employees vest with the Board. State counsel further submitted that though the employees of Local Bodies are not State Government employees, but some employees of the Municipality/ Municipal Corporation filed writ petition (W.P.S. 152 of 2005 and analogous cases) claiming that in view of the said Resolution dated 26.10.2004 their retirement age has also increased to 60 years. The said writ petitions were disposed of by order dated 31.1.2005 directing the Urban Development Department to take a decision. Thereafter a Contempt Petition was filed. This Court never directed to enhance the age. This Court directed to take a decision in that regard, but a decision was taken to enhance the retirement age of the employees of the Municipality/ Municipal Corporation to 60 years, without considering the relevant aspects in that regard, presumably on the threat of contempt. However he submitted that the said Resolution dated 13.4.2005 is applicable only to the employees of the Municipal Corporation/Municipality and Notified Area Committee, and not to the Board. 8. The stand of the Board, inter alia is that in the interest of the work the age of superannuation of Ajitanand Prasad was extended w.e.f. 14.8.2006 and accordingly, on 30.12.2006 the Board decided to enhance the age of all its employees from the said date in the light of the said Resolution dated 13.4.2005. The Secretary of the Board by his letter dated 16.12.2006 asked for guidelines from the Urban Development Department regarding the enhancement of age of Ajitanand Prasad. The Secretary of the Board by his letter dated 16.12.2006 asked for guidelines from the Urban Development Department regarding the enhancement of age of Ajitanand Prasad. The Urban Development Department asked for the proceeding of the meeting dated 14.8.2006 by letter dated 12.1.2007 and then in the letter dated 28.2.2007 the Department said that the Board is competent to give effect to its decision and it is not necessary to refer such matter to the Department. However, the said decision has not been given effect to as it will further adversely effect the bad financial condition of the Board. 9. Now, the first question is whether the Urban Development Department of the State of Jharkhand has got any role to play in the enhancement of age of superannuation of the employees of the Board? The stand of the Urban Development Department is that in view of Section 11 of the Act, the Board is competent to take such decision. Section 11 reads as follows: 11. Establishment of the Board- (1) The Board may determine and appoint the establishment to be employed by it and fix the salaries to be paid to the members of such establishment. (2) The Board may make rules- (a) for pensions and gratuities to be granted and paid to its establishment, and for the grant and payment of extraordinary pensions and gratuities to the families of deceased employees; (b) for creation and management of a Provident Fund for such establishment; (c) for compelling members of its establishment to contribute to such Fund: (d) for supplementing such contributions by grants from its Fund; and (e) for the payment of moneys out of the Provident Fund. 10. Under Section 11 the Board may determine and appoint the establishment to be employed, fix the salaries, pension and Provident Fund, etc. Such powers, in my opinion, will not include the power to take a policy decision like enhancement of age of superannuation of the employees. This view finds support from the provisions of the Act. As per Section 12(f) the State Government may make rules for the duties, appointment, leave, fining, suspension and removal of any member of the establishment of the Board. As per Section 18(2) the State Government has to approve the budget within which the Board has to work. Under Section 20, the State Government may make rules regarding the Fund of the Board. As per Section 18(2) the State Government has to approve the budget within which the Board has to work. Under Section 20, the State Government may make rules regarding the Fund of the Board. Under Section 30, the State Government has got power of inspection. Section 31(b) reads as follows: 31, Power of State Government to make rules.- The State Government may make rules-...(b) to regulate the exercise or performance by the Board of any power or duty conferred or imposed on the Board by or under the provisions of this Act. Further the notification dated 16.8.1980 issued by the Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, under Section 12(f) and (h) and Section 31(b) shows that Rule 3 was substituted by the Urban Development Department, fixing 58 years as the date of compulsory retirement of the employees of the Board. 11. The enhancement of the age of retirement will certainly have effect on the finance of the Board. It is true that the Board is autonomous body but from the provisions of the Act, as noticed above it is clear that the State Government is required to have an overall supervision over the functioning and finance of the Board. In the aforesaid letter dated 16.12.2006, the Secretary of the Board informed the Urban Development Department that the financial condition of the Board is bad and therefore the decision dated 30.12.2006 to enhance the age of superannuation of its employees has the decision dated 30.12.2006 to enhance the age of superannuation of its employees has not been given effect to. 12. From the facts and circumstances noticed above, it is clear that the said Resolution dated 13.4.2005 is applicable only to the Municipal Corporation/ Municipality/ Notified Area Committee and is not applicable to the Board. Moreover, the manner in which the Resolution was taken on 30.12.2006 cannot be appreciated. On the purported ground of confirming the minutes dated 14.8.2006 regarding enhancement of retirement age of Ajitanand Prasad and on the purported basis of the said Resolution dated 13.4.2005, a self serving decision was taken to enhance the age of retirement of all the employees of the Board, in most perfunctory manner. Before taking such vital policy decision, the Board should have considered the relevant aspects such as its financial condition and the requirement of the work, etc. Admittedly, the financial condition of the Board is bad. Before taking such vital policy decision, the Board should have considered the relevant aspects such as its financial condition and the requirement of the work, etc. Admittedly, the financial condition of the Board is bad. The State Government is only competent to take decision on such policy decision and that too on consideration of relevant aspects such as the financial condition, the need and whether the Board is achieving the purpose for which it was created, etc. But unfortunately the Urban Development Department is shirking its duties and responsibilities conferred on it by the Act, by saying that the Hazaribagh Mines Board is competent to take decision on such policy matters of enhancement of retirement age of its employees. 13. This Court therefore concludes - (i) the Resolution dated 26.10.2004 (Annexure 1) by which the retirement age of the State Government employees was enhanced, and the Resolution dated 13.4.2005 by which the retirement age of the employees of the Municipal Corporation/Municipality and Notified Area Committee, was enhanced are not applicable to the Hazaribagh Mines Board; (ii) the Hazaribagh Mines Board is not competent to take a decision with regard to enhancement of the retirement age of its employees and accordingly the decision dated 30.12.2006, with regard to the enhancement of retirement age of all the employees is set aside (the validity of the Resolutions enhancing age of retirement of Ajitanand Prasad, has not been considered as he is not party in this writ petition); and (iii) it is only the Urban Development Department of the State of Jharkhand which can take such decision after considering the relevant aspects in that regard as indicated above. 14. Accordingly, the impugned letter dated 18.7.2005, informing the petitioner that he is going to retire w.e.f. 31.7.2005, needs no interference. In the result this writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. However, no costs.