JUDGMENT S.R. SINGHARAVELU, J. — Challenging the action of the opposite party No.2 vide Office Memorandum dated 28.11.2006 rolling back the age of the retirement of the petitioner from 62 to 58 years and consequentially also challenging the superannua¬tion notice dated 29.11.2006 issued to the petitioner, this writ was filed. 2. The main grounds of challenge in the writ application are as follows : The respondent-company is a joint sector of IDPL and IPICOL having respective shares. The petitioner was initially recruited in the year 1992 as an Executive. He was delegated with the power of Chief Executive with disciplinary powers from May 2003 to July 2006. The age of retirement was raised from 58 to 60 by two office memorandums dated 17.8.1998 & 21.8.1998 of the D.P.E. It was also extended to Public Sector Enterprisers. It was provided that in case any public sector undertaking does not want to increase the age of retirement to 60 years, specific exemption from the operation of the said decision would be taken by approv¬al of the Union Cabinet. The impugned order of refusing extended the age of retirement, rolling back the age and making the peti¬tioner to retire is against the guidelines and office memorandum dated 9.5.2000 of the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprisers of the Department of Public Enterprisers. Therefore, the writ was filed challenging the above impugned order. 3. In the counter, it was pleaded inter alia that the Board of Directors in their meeting decided the age of superannu¬ation as only 58. The matter relating to winding up of the Compa¬ny is pending before the Company Court. The petitioner has ap¬proached the Court with unclean hands. 4. We have heard the learned counsels for the petitioner as well as the opposite parties. 5. At the outset, it is to be pointed out that the peti¬tioner was made to retire at the age of 58. It is not dis¬puted that the age of retirement was enhanced from 58 to 60 by virtue of Office Memorandum dated 17.8.1998 & 21.8.1998 of the D.P.E. The same was also extended to the employees of Central Public Sector Enterprises like the opposite parties. 6. There is a guideline issued by the Govt. It is not dis¬puted that the age of retirement was enhanced from 58 to 60 by virtue of Office Memorandum dated 17.8.1998 & 21.8.1998 of the D.P.E. The same was also extended to the employees of Central Public Sector Enterprises like the opposite parties. 6. There is a guideline issued by the Govt. of India, Department of Public Enterprisers in the Ministry of Heavy Indus¬tries and Public Enterprisers by way of an Office Memorandum dated 9.5.2000 wherein the following was mentioned : “The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department’s O.M. No.18(6)/98-GM dated 19.5.1998 and No.18/9/98-GM dated 21.8.1998 on the subject mentioned above and to say that there has been proposals for rolling back the age of retirement in the case of some sick/unviable PSUs for which rehabilitation/revival packages are under consideration. The procedure to be followed in such cases was considered and has now been decided that in such cases the Board of the concerned company should review its earli¬er decision on the raising of the age of retirement and make suitable recommendations to the administrative Ministry/Depart¬ment concerned for taking the approval of the Cabinet. All the administrative Ministers/Departments are requested to follow the above procedure in case the age of retirement of employees of sick/unviable PSU for which rehabilitation/revival packages are under consideration, is to be rolled back to 58 years. The PSUs under their administrative control may also be apprised of this procedure.” 7. When once the age of retirement was raised from 58 to 60 by virtue of the Office Memorandum dated 17th & 21st August, 1998 that is not the end of it. The Board of the Sick Company for which rehabilitation/revival package are under consideration may review its earlier decision on the raising of age of retirement and this enabling provision is made in the office memorandum dated 9.5.2000 (above mentioned) and as per which any such recom¬mendation of rolling back of retirement age will be put into effect and after approval of the Cabinet. When once no recommen¬dation for rolling back is sent for approval as above it cannot get the sanction of above office memorandum dated 9.5.2000. This has not been done in the instant case. 8. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed invalidating the office memorandum dated 28.11.2006. B.P. DAS, J. I agree. Petition allowed.