JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondent- Corporation. 2. The writ application has been preferred by the Employees Union of the Bihar State Pharmaceutical & Chemical Development Corporation Ltd. The relief sought for is for enhancement of the age of superannuation of its employees from 58 to 60 years. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Corporation through its Board of Directors took a policy decision on 22.4.1978 that till such time that the Corporation did not frame its own Rules and Regulations, that of the Government of Bihar shall be adopted. He submits that the State Government vide notification dated 24.3.2005 has taken a policy decision to enhance the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years. Directions have been issued for necessary modification under Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code accordingly. He submits, therefore, that no sooner that the State Government enhanced the age of superannuation, in absence of any Regulations of the Corporation to the contrary, by virtue of the decision of the Board of Directors of the Corporation dated 22.4.1978, the enhanced age of superannuation in the Corporation automatically stood adopted with effect from 24.3.2005. 4. The next submission on behalf of the petitioner is that even if the contention of the respondents of financial stringency be correct and which fact the petitioners also acknowledge, yet if the benefit of the enhanced age of superannuation is given to the petitioners, they shall become entitled to certain monetary emoluments compensatory in nature to be paid by the State Government in pursuance of certain orders of the Supreme Court in the case of Kapila Hingorani Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2003(3) PLJR (SC) 17. 5. Learned counsel for the Corporation from the counter affidavit submits that CWJC No. 6586 of 2006 was preferred by an employee of the Corporation on a similar issue, when this Court granted liberty to file a representation to be decided by the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors at its 88th meeting on 27.7.2007 has decided not to enhance the age of superannuation considering the financial position of the Corporation, which is unable to pay regular salary to its own employees or meeting the regular expenses for functioning of the Corporation. 6. It has been held in (2008) 5 SCC 1 (P. Venugopal Vs. The Board of Directors at its 88th meeting on 27.7.2007 has decided not to enhance the age of superannuation considering the financial position of the Corporation, which is unable to pay regular salary to its own employees or meeting the regular expenses for functioning of the Corporation. 6. It has been held in (2008) 5 SCC 1 (P. Venugopal Vs. Union of India) that age of superannuation is for the employer to fix and alter. Extension of age for superannuation and refusal to do so cannot be questioned on the grounds of deprivation of a right or privilege. "The view taken is that the employer has a discretion to grant or not to grant such extension having regard to the interest of the employer or the establishment". It is the employer, who has to bear the additional burden that may occur by reason of such decision being taken and, therefore, the Court should be careful and loath in easily interfering in such matters. 7. The only occasion for the Court to interfere would be if the authorities were acting arbitrarily and without application of mind for no justifiable reason. Per se the Boards resolution dated 22.4.1978 shall bind the Corporation unless for relevant and germane reasons the Corporation discloses its mind as to why in the year 2009 it is unable to follow the resolution taken in 1978. The Court finds it difficult to accede to the argument of the petitioner that unless the resolution dated 22.4.1978 is not recalled or annulled, no fresh decision can be taken by the Board in the manner sought to be done. 8. This Court holds that the reasons disclosed by the Respondents in the counter affidavit can neither be stated to be arbitrary, extraneous or irrelevant. The reasons are very relevant and germane. There is no occasion for this Court to substitute its view and opinion for that of the Corporation. 9. The second submission of the petitioner is also difficult to accept. The petitioner, in fact, contended that even if they are not given the benefit of service for these two years, at least they should be given the benefit of financial emoluments compensatory in nature for those two years. 10. 9. The second submission of the petitioner is also difficult to accept. The petitioner, in fact, contended that even if they are not given the benefit of service for these two years, at least they should be given the benefit of financial emoluments compensatory in nature for those two years. 10. This Court finds it very difficult to accept this argument as this would again result in imposition of financial burden which the Corporation as it is stated that it is not in a position to bear. The Court finds it difficult in the facts of the case to pass an order of the nature which shall impose any financial burden on the State Government by reasons of any direction in Kapila Hingorani case (supra) to pay compensatory amount. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly placed reliance on a Bench decision of this Court in 2009(1) PLJR 580 (Chandradeo Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.), when this Court with regard to Bihar Industrial Development Corporation has issued order for enhancement of the age of superannuation. The judgment sought to be relied upon is easily distinguishable on facts as in that case, no defence of financial stringency was taken on behalf of the Corporation. 12. The present order has no bearing and shall not affect any service claims, salary dues etc. of the petitioner till the age of 58 years. 13. There is no merit in this writ application and it is dismissed.