Judgment 1. Both the Letters Patent Appeals are barred by limitation. 2. Considering the averments made in the applications for condonation of delay and having regard to the question of law involved in the appeals, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, we allow the applications for condonation of delay and direct the appeals to be registered. 3. The appellants in both the Letters Patent Appeals and the writ petitioners in the connected writ petitions were the employees of the respondent Corporation and attained the age of 58 years in between 24th March, 2005 and 29th July, 2006. 4. Bihar Service Code, containing rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, governs some of the service conditions of the officers and employees of the State Government. Rule 73 thereof prescribes the age of superannuation of such officers and employees. Until 23rd March, 2005, in terms of Rule 73 of the said Code, the age of superannuation of the officers and employees of the State Government was 58. On 24th March, 2005 the State Government amended Rule 73 of the said Code and thereby enhanced the age of superannuation of its officers and employees to 60 years. 5. The provisions contained in the said Code are not ipso facto applicable to the respondent Corporation and accordingly the provisions contained therein do not ipso facto regulates the conditions of service of the officers and employees of the respondent Corporation. On 21st May, 1973 the respondent Corporation took a resolution, the relevant portion whereof is as follows: "Resolved that until such time as the Service Code, Financial Rules etc. are framed by the Corporation, provisions made in the Bihar Service Code,...........applicable to the State Government employees be adopted for the employees of the Corporation." 6. In view of the said resolution, the officers and employees of the respondent Corporation upon attaining the age of 58 years superannuated from the services of the respondent Corporation. After the age of superannuation of the officers and employees of the State Government had been enhanced by amending Rule 73 of the said Code, respondent Corporation felt it necessary to ascertain the position in relation to its own officers and employees as regards their age of superannuation. The respondent-Corporation wanted to know from the Government what they should do. After the age of superannuation of the officers and employees of the State Government had been enhanced by amending Rule 73 of the said Code, respondent Corporation felt it necessary to ascertain the position in relation to its own officers and employees as regards their age of superannuation. The respondent-Corporation wanted to know from the Government what they should do. The State Government advised the respondent-Corporation to take a decision and thereupon forward the same to the State Government for its approval. The Board of Directors of the Corporation then sat down and felt that having regard to its resolution dated 14th April, 1981 and 13th November, 2001 it is necessary to obtain legal opinion as to whether its resolution dated 21st May, 1973 is still in vogue and proposed to have such legal opinion from the learned Advocate Genera! of the State. It also resolved that if the legal advice of the Advocate General is to the effect that the provisions of the said Code are still applicable, as adapted by it on 21st May, 1973, it would also effect change in the age of superannuation of its officers and employees. The learned Advocate General, on being approached, furnished his opinion and thereby expressed that the resolution adapted by the respondent-Corporation on 21st May, 1973 still holds good for the resolution dated 14th April, 1981 did not rescind the resolution dated 21st May, 1973 and accordingly cancellation of the resolution dated 14th April, 1981 by the subsequent resolution dated 13th November, 2001 did not at all affect the resolution of the respondent-Corporation dated 21st May, 1973. Upon the said opinion being received, the respondent Corporation issued a notification on 29th July, 2006 and thereby extended the age of superannuation of its officers and employees from 58 years to 60 years from the date of the said decision i.e. with effect from 29th July, 2006. 7. In the appeals and the writ petitions, the appellants and the writ petitioners are contending that they are entitled to the benefit of extension of the age of superannuation with effect from the date, since when the officers and employees of the State Government obtained the same. 7. In the appeals and the writ petitions, the appellants and the writ petitioners are contending that they are entitled to the benefit of extension of the age of superannuation with effect from the date, since when the officers and employees of the State Government obtained the same. The respondent-Corporation is contending that it is a benefit which has been accorded by the Corporation to its employees and accordingly its decision to give such benefit from the date from which the same has been given cannot be altered at the instance of the persons to whom such benefit has not been accorded. In law, a benefit accorded by an employer to a class of its employees cannot be asked by another class of employees to whom such benefit has not been given. Accordingly, if the Corporation decides to accord benefit of extension of the age of superannuation from 29th July, 2006, the officers and employees of the Corporation, who have reached the age of superannuation as was in vogue until 28th July, 2006, cannot ask the Corporation to grant the benefit of extension or ask for giving effect to the decision of enhancement with retrospective effect. Therefore, the one and the only thing that this Court is required to look at is whether the benefit of extension has been given to the appellants, writ petitioners and other similarly situated employees of the Corporation even without the notification dated 29th July, 2006. For that matter the one and the only thing that is to be looked at is the resolution of the Corporation dated 21st May, 1973. 8. A look at the resolution dated 21st May, 1973 makes it absolutely clear that the Bihar Service Code applicable to the State Government employees was adapted for the employees of the Corporation. This adaptation, no doubt, was made of the Code as was then in existence. The question is whether this adaptation was made of the future changes which may be incorporated in the Code in future or not. The resolution is required to be read as a whole. The Code as applicable to the State Government employees until Service Code and Financial Rules as framed by the Corporation were adapted for the employees of the Corporation. Therefore, time until when adaptation will remain in force had been indicated and that is until Service Code and Financial Rules are framed by the Corporation. The Code as applicable to the State Government employees until Service Code and Financial Rules as framed by the Corporation were adapted for the employees of the Corporation. Therefore, time until when adaptation will remain in force had been indicated and that is until Service Code and Financial Rules are framed by the Corporation. The true meaning of the resolution, therefore, would be that until Service Code and Financial Rules are framed by the Corporation, the Bihar Service Code as applicable to the State Government employees shall apply to the employees of the Corporation. This resolution dated 21st May, 1973 admittedly had not been withdrawn until 29th July, 2006. Much prior thereto on 24th March, 2005 the Service Code was altered as regards the age of superannuation. By that time or even thereafter no Service Code or Financial Rules had been framed by the Corporation. While on and from 24th March, 2005 in terms of the Service Code as applicable to the State Government employees, the State Government employees became entitled to serve upto the age of 60 years, since by that time no Service Code or Financial Rules had been framed by the Corporation, in terms of the resolution dated 21st May, 1973 the officers and employees of the Corporation became entitle to the same benefit. 9. In Harwindra Kumar V/s. Chief Engineer, Karmik, AIR 2006 SC 365 , regulations were framed by a Nigam under the Act and Regulation 31 thereof laid down, amongst others, that the conditions of service of the employees of the Nigam shall be governed by such rules, regulations and orders which are equally applicable to other serving Government servants functioning in the State. While the age of superannuation of the employees of the State Government had been increased, simultaneous increase of the age of superannuation of the employees of the Nigam had not been granted. The employees of the Nigam, who did not get the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation, approached the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court by the judgment referred to above held that by framing the said regulation a decision had already been taken to equally treat the employees of the Nigam with that of the employees of the Government. The employees of the Nigam, who did not get the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation, approached the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court by the judgment referred to above held that by framing the said regulation a decision had already been taken to equally treat the employees of the Nigam with that of the employees of the Government. In the instant case also, the words "applicable to the State Government employees" have been used in the resolution dated 21st May, 1973 while adapting the provisions contained in the Bihar Service Code until such time the Service Code, Financial Rules etc. are not framed by the Corporation. Therefore, on 21st May, 1973 it was decided to make available to the officers and employees of the Corporation the changes that may be effected in the Service Code applicable to the State Government employees till such time the Corporation itself frames its Service Code and other Financial Rules. 10. In those circumstances, the appeals are allowed. The orders under the appeals are set aside. The writ petitions filed by the appellants and also other writ petitions considered analogously are allowed and the Corporation is directed to pay the salaries payable to the petitioners treating them to have served until the age of 60 years. It is declared that in view of the resolution of the Corporation dated 21st May, 1973 they were entitled to serve up to the age of 60 years no sooner Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code stood altered in the manner as indicated above. In the event, any of these writ petitioners has not yet attained the age of 60 years, they should forthwith be permitted to rejoin their services.