ORDER The petitioner was an employee of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation. It is now not in dispute that the Bihar Service Code is applicable to the employees of the said Corporation. This decision was taken by the Corporation way back in 1966 and reiterated in 1977. It appears that the State Government took a policy decision and amended Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code with effect from 24.3.2005 whereby the age of superannuation was increased from 58 to 60 years. In ordinary course, as now has been held by Division Bench as well, this would automatically have applied to the employees of the Corporation as well. The Corporation is not acting accordingly. Petitioner was made to superannuate on 30.4.2005. He immediately filed the writ petition being CWJC No.7316 of 2005 challenging his superannuation. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 13.12.2006 holding that the Corporation had taken a decision on 29.7.2006 prospectively only. It appears that one similarly situated employee, namely, Kameshwar Mahto also filed a writ petition. His writ petition was dismissed. He preferred LPA No. 1021 of 2005, which was also dismissed by order dated 29.11.2006 giving him liberty to take fresh action in view of the subsequent development. Kameshwar Mahto then filed a writ petition being CWJC No. 752 of 2007. In the meantime, some L.P.As. were also pending on the same issue. All those L.P.As. were taken up together being L.P.A. No. 829 of 2007 and analogous cases and the L.P.As. and writ petitions were allowed. It was held that no sooner the State Government amended Rule 73 with effect from 24.3.2005, the benefits would automatically apply to the employees of the Corporation. This judgment having been rendered by Division Bench, petitioner filed an application for modification of order, which was passed in his writ petition whereby the writ petition was dismissed. This Court gave liberty in MJC No. 467 of 2008, disposed of on 5.2.2009 to file fresh writ petition in view of the facts as aforesaid. It is under these circumstances the present writ petition was filed. 2. Mr. ,R. S. Pradhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Corporation very fairly submits that against the Division Bench judgment of this Court, the Corporation had preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed in limine. It is under these circumstances the present writ petition was filed. 2. Mr. ,R. S. Pradhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Corporation very fairly submits that against the Division Bench judgment of this Court, the Corporation had preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed in limine. Review petition was filed before the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed. Now, a curative petition is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In my view, the law having been laid down by this Court in Division Bench judgment, as noted above, would automatically apply to all the employees. They do not individually have to come to this Court for getting an order. 3. Mr. R.S. Pradhan, learned Senior Counsel, submits on the authority of (2006)11 Supreme Court Cases 464 (U.P. Jal Nigam & Anr. Vs. Jaswant Singh & Anr.) that those employees who are not vigilant to vindicate their cause, cannot get the benefits of the judgment subsequently delivered. He submits that the petitioner was made to superannuate on 30.4.2005. Even in ordinary course he would have, if the law already amended would apply, retired on 30.4.2007. This present writ petition has been filed in 2009. Petitioner should not get the benefits of the judgment of this Court. 4. In my view the submission is misconceived. This Court cannot deny the fact that immediately on being forced to superannuate in 2005 itself, the petitioner had filed the writ petition. He was vigilant. As it now appears that the writ petition was wrongly dismissed, and that is the view of the Division Bench. That being so, the petitioner would be entitled to declaration that he had continued two years in service and the judgment of the Apex Court would not apply to the facts of the present case. Thus, the writ petition stands allowed and the petitioner would be deemed that he was in service and superannuated on 30.4.2007. The petitioner would be thus entitled to all the benefits.