JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. 1. The parties were heard at length for final disposal of the writ petition on 25.1.2007 when the order was reserved and prayer for interim relief was refused. 2. Petitioner claims to be an Association of the employees of Bihar State Financial Corporation (BSFC), working within the State of Jharkhand. According to the petitioner, in view of the resolutions of BSFC, the decision of the Government of Bihar dated 24.3.2005 (Annexure-1) to enhance the age of superannuation of State Government employees from 58 to 60 years, has become applicable to the members of petitioner also and there is no need to get sanction of the State Government to amend Regulation 19 (i) of the Bihar State Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulation, 1965 (the Regulation for short), for this purpose. 3. By way of Amendment Petition, (I.A. No. 244 of 2007), petitioner has challenged the decision of the State of Bihar, communicated under Memo No. 255 dated 12.1.2007 refusing sanction to the resolutions of BSFC for enhancing the age of superannuation. 4. Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, relied on the Resolution dated 24.12.1988 taken on item No. 11203 by BSFC (Annexure-6) and the Standing Order No. 2/89-90 dated 19.7.1989 issued pursuant to the said Resolution (Annexure-6/1). He also relied on the Resolution dated 25.8.2006 on item No. 13159 contained in Annexure-2 and 3. Mr. Sinha submitted that the said resolutions were taken Under Section 23 of the Bihar State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (the Act for short) and therefore BSFC was not required to approach the State Government for sanction of the said Resolutions. Alternatively, he submitted that the State of Bihar has wrongly refused sanction on the ground that the financial position of BSFC is bad. In this connection, he referred to the letter dated 27.12.2006, in which the Manager (P&A) of BSFC said that the Board has been paying the salary and retiral dues of it's employees from its own sources and if the age is enhanced from 58 to 60 years, BSFC will be able to bear the extra burden. He also relied on some portions of the balance sheet to show that BSFC has earned profit during 2003-04 and 2004-05. He also relied on some portions of the balance sheet to show that BSFC has earned profit during 2003-04 and 2004-05. He also referred to a copy of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar in a writ petition filed at Patna, being CWJC No. 4364 of 2006 by one Mr. Arif and submitted that the stand of State of Bihar therein was that BSFC is a corporate body registered under the SFCS Act, of which State Government is a share holder and as such State Government is not the right forum and competent authority from which the petitioner of that case could seek redressal of his grievances of superannuating him at the age of 58 years. 5. Mr. A.K. Mehta, appearing for BSFC, with reference to the counter affidavit submitted that amendment in the age of retirement can only be made by making necessary amendment in Regulation 19(i). The said Regulation was framed in exercise of powers conferred Under Section 23, read with Section 48 of the Act after consultation with Reserve Bank and with previous sanction of the State Government. The State Government after taking all aspects into consideration has declined to grant approval to the Resolutions of BSFC to enhance the age of retirement. 6. The stand of the State of Bihar, inter alia, is that the sanction for enhancement of age of retirement has been refused after considering the relevant aspects. The financial position of the corporation is very bad and the recent profit is negligible against the huge accumulated loss and any decision regarding enhancement of retirement age will result into additional financial burden on the resources of the BSFC. 7. Thus, two questions are involved in this writ petition. (i) Whether the BSFC is required to take sanction from the State Government for amendment of Regulation 19 (i) relating to the age of superannuation and (ii) whether the refusal of the State of Bihar to grant such sanction is bad? 8. Re-question No. (i). From the resolutions of BSFC dated 24.12.1988 relied by Mr. Sinha, it appears that BSFC resolved to approach the State Government for necessary amendment in Regulation 19. 8. Re-question No. (i). From the resolutions of BSFC dated 24.12.1988 relied by Mr. Sinha, it appears that BSFC resolved to approach the State Government for necessary amendment in Regulation 19. It is clear from the Resolution under item No. 13159 dated 25.4.2006 that BSFC resolved to take steps for amendment in Regulation 19 in terms of the Act after due approval of the State Government and SIDBI; in view of the decision of the State Government dated 24.3.2005 for enhancing the age of superannuation of the State Government employees. Section 23 of the Act, inter alia, provides that BSFC can appoint employees and determine, by regulations, their conditions of appointment and service etc. Section 48 of the Act provides that the Board of Directors of the Financial Corporation, after consultation with the Small Industries Bank and with the previous sanction of the State Government can make Regulations (emphasis supplied). Section 23 cannot be read in isolation and it has to be read with Section 48. The aforesaid Regulation was also made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 23 and Section 48 of the Act after consultation with Reserve Bank and with previous sanction of the State Government. Therefore, it is clear that for amendment of Regulation 19(i) (which provides that every employee shall retire at 58 years of age, subject to sub Regulation (ii)), previous sanction of the State Government is necessary. The orders/judgments relied by Mr. Sinha are of no help to the petitioner. The order dated 15.9.2006, passed in CWJC No. 8583 of 2005--Bihar Rajya Zila Parishad Karamchari Mahasangh; the order dated 14.8.2006, passed in LPA No. 201 of 2006---Raghunath Purti etc. and the order dated 5.9.2006, passed in LPA No. 269 of 2006-Damu Devgam 2006 (4) JLJR 312 are related with the employees of Zila Parishad, who are guided by the Bihar Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishad (condition of service) Rules, 1964. As per Rule 4, the State Government may depute officers. As per Rule 5(4) the Subordinate Technical Employees, who are permanent Govt. servants may exercise option to continue as Govt. servants, if they want to be governed by the service conditions applicable to the State Government employees. As per sub Rule 3 to Rule 8, the service condition of employees of the Zila Parishad appointed under the said Rules are governed, mutatis mutandis, by the rule in force for the State Govt. servants may exercise option to continue as Govt. servants, if they want to be governed by the service conditions applicable to the State Government employees. As per sub Rule 3 to Rule 8, the service condition of employees of the Zila Parishad appointed under the said Rules are governed, mutatis mutandis, by the rule in force for the State Govt. employees. But there is no such provision in the Regulations of BSFC. This is the reason, and rightly BSFC approached the State Government for sanction of its Resolutions for enhancing the age of retirement of it's employees. The case of Association of Selected Candidates v. State of Bihar 1990 (2) PLJR 748 is also of no help to the petitioner. In that case, the scope of Section 23 (as it then stood prior to omission of proviso, with effect from 5.9.2000) and Section 39 of the Act, in relation to appointment of Management Trainees was under consideration. The aforesaid stand taken on behalf of the State of Bihar in the counter affidavit filed in CWJC No. 4364 by one Md. Arif, relied on behalf of the petitioner, cannot be interpreted to mean that BSFC can amend regulation without sanction of the State Government in the teeth of the provisions of Sections 23 and 48 of the Act. Taking into consideration all these aspects, it has to be held that BSFC was/is required to take prior sanction of the State Government for amending Regulation 19. 9. Re-question (ii) The next question is whether the decision of the State of Bihar refusing to sanction the amendment of Regulation 19(i) relating to enhancement of the age of retirement, is bad? It appears from the materials brought on the record that the accumulated loss of corporation runs into several crores. Only because the salary/retiral dues of the employees were being paid by the corporation, it can be said that the financial condition of the corporation is good. On the basis of some recent profit, it cannot be said that the decision of the State Government, not to create further financial burden, is bad. The State Government took into consideration that such profits were meager against huge accumulated loss. In my opinion, the State Government has taken relevant matters into consideration while refusing to sanction amendment of Regulation 19 for enhancement of age in view of the present financial position of the BSFC. 10. The State Government took into consideration that such profits were meager against huge accumulated loss. In my opinion, the State Government has taken relevant matters into consideration while refusing to sanction amendment of Regulation 19 for enhancement of age in view of the present financial position of the BSFC. 10. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. (Accordingly, I.A. No. 3297 of 2006 for addition of State of Bihar as party and I.A. No. 244 of 2007 challenging the decision of the State Government dated 22.1.2007 by way of amendment petition, are also disposed of). However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.