JUDGMENT By the Court.—In these three connected writ petitions the association of officers and employees of the U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation Ltd. (in short the Corporation) represented by Shri Rajendra Kumar Verma in Writ Petition No. 39797 of 2007; Shri Jagvir Singh serving as Incharge District Accounts Officer, Badaun in Writ Petition No. 33859 of 2007, and Shri Awadhesh Narayan Mishra serving as District Incharge, Allahabad with additional charge of District Incharge, Bahraich, have prayed for directions to quash the Government Order dated 30.7.2007 by which the State Government has in pursuance to the Government Order dated 25th July, 2002 issued by Public Sector Enterprises communicated to the Managing Director of the Corporation that his proposal for increasing the age of retirement of employees of the Corporation from 58 to 60 years was not found acceptable. 2. The petitioners have prayed for directing the respondents not to retire them, until they attain the age of 60 years, on the ground that the State Government has amended Fundamental Rule 56 of the Financial Handbook Vol. 2 para II to IV vide notification dated 27th June, 2002, in exercise of its powers under the proviso to Art.309 of the Constitution of India increasing the age of superannuation of all the State Government servants from 58 to 60 years. In the 20th adjourned meeting of the Board of Director of the Corporation held on 10.1.1979 at 17 Gokhale Marg, Lucknow it was decided at Item No. 16 that the orders of the Public Enterprise Bureau of the Government and the recommendations made by it will automatically apply to the Corporation. The petitioners have also claimed discrimination in retiring them at the age of 58 years, whereas the employees of the State Government have been extended the benefit of superannuation at 60 years. 3. In all these three writ petitions the Court granted interim orders directing that since the State Government has not taken any decision on the letter of the Chairman, there is no reason as to why the age of superannuation in the Corporation should continue to remain 58 years, whereas the age of superannuation in the State Government is 60 years and in the Universities 65 years. The Court was of the prima facie opinion that for the laxity on the part of the State Government the petitioners/ members should not suffer and directed that the respondents to continue the petitioner in service till they attain the age of 60 years and to pay their salary. 4. The Corporation failed in persuading the Court to vacate the interim order filed Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 4004-4005 of 2008. The appeal was dismissed by the Apex Court as having become infructuous on 31.7.2009, with a request to the High Court to expedite the main matter. 5. The writ petitions were adjourned in the absence and on the illness slip of the counsel of the petitioners on 4.12.2009, 11.12.2009 and 18.1.2009. The matter was finally heard and the judgment was reserved on 16.2.2010. 6. Shri Chandra Shekhar Singh representing the Corporation has filed counter-affidavit of Shri Syed Ahmad, Manager (Establishment), U.P. State Food & Essential Commodities Corporation Ltd. It is stated by him that the Corporation is duly incorporated Corporation and is an autonomous organisation having its own legal entity. It is a company incorporated under the Companies Act having its own Board of Directors, which is entitled to exercise all the powers and do all such acts and things as the company is authorised to do so. Under Article 79 (15) of the Articles of Association, the service regulations were framed, after they were duly approved in the Board of Directors in its Meeting dated 29.6.1987, and as per the Regulation 45 all employees are public servant within the meaning of Indian Penal Code. The Regulations provide for retirement age at 58 years. In paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that neither the Board nor the State Government has accorded any approval for increasing the age of retirement. On 5.2.1986 the Government Order was issued, whereby the State Government communicated to all the Corporation that he age of retirement should not be increased by the Corporations without taking prior approval of the Government. By another Government Order dated 25.7.2002 the State Government again communicated that the age of retirement of the officer will not be increased and that the Government has taken a decision that there will not be any increase in the age of retirement of the employees of the corporation. By another Government Order dated 25.7.2002 the State Government again communicated that the age of retirement of the officer will not be increased and that the Government has taken a decision that there will not be any increase in the age of retirement of the employees of the corporation. The recommendations of the Managing Director of the Corporation were rejected by the State government on 30.7.2007 after which the matter was taken up in the 127th meeting of the Board of Directors of the Company. At Item No. 9 with regard to increasing the age of retirement to 60 years, the Board of Directors rejected the proposal. 7. The averments in the counter-affidavit that the State Government has decided in its orders dated 5.2.1986, 25.7.2002 and 30.7.2007 not to increase the age of superannuation of the employees of the Corporation and that Board of Directors in its 127th meeting at resolution No. 9 did not accept the proposal to increase the age of retirement have not been denied. 8. The State Government has deep and pervasive control over the administration and financial affairs of the Corporation. It is government company under Section 617 of the Companies act, 1956, and is an instrumentality of the State. For the purposes of conditions of service of its employees unless the Corporation decides, with the approval of the State Government, the retirement age of its employees will continue to be governed by the regulations framed by the Board of Directors of the Corporation. The amendment to U.P. Fundamental Rules vide U.P. Fundamental (Amendment) Rules, 2002 dated 27th June, 2002 is applicable only to government servant. The employees of the Corporation are not government servants and are not regulated by Fundamental Rules. Unless the Regulations are amended by the Board of Directors, the petitioners do not have any right of increase in the age of superannuation. 9. The age of retirement of its employees is a policy matter to be decided by its Board of Directors having the authority to frame the service regulations. The policy has to be based upon the financial condition, recruitment policy and other considerations. The Court does not ordinarily interfere in such policy matters unless the policy is shown to be violative of any statutory provisions of law, arbitrary or capricious. 10. The policy has to be based upon the financial condition, recruitment policy and other considerations. The Court does not ordinarily interfere in such policy matters unless the policy is shown to be violative of any statutory provisions of law, arbitrary or capricious. 10. Regulation 26 of Service Regulations of the Corporations made under Art.75 (15) of the Articles of Association of the Company, clearly provides that until the Board with the prior approval of the State Government increases the period of employment, which shall not exceed the age of 60 years, every employee shall ordinarily retire at the age of 58 years. 11. All the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that those petitioners, who have worked upto the age of 60 years under the interim orders passed by the Court, and those, who are working after 58 years, taking advantage of the interim orders should not be subjected to recovery of the pay and that their retirement dues should be paid as if they have retired at the age of 60 years. We are not inclined to accept the submission on the ground that the petitioners did not come to the Court with clean hands. The interim orders were granted in the year 2007, whereas the Board of Directors of the Corporation in its 127th meeting held on 27.9.2006 had turned down the proposal for increasing the age of retirement to 60 years. The petitioners did not disclose this fact in the writ petition. It is difficult to believe that this fact was not within the knowledge of Adhikari/Karmchari Samagra Vikas Samiti of the Corporation. Further the State Government and the Bureau of Public Enterprises have consistently taken a decision not to increase the age of retirement of the employees of the Public Sector Corporations in U.P. The petitioners were fully aware of the decision of the State Government and have not denied that they had knowledge of the Government Orders dated 5.2.1986, 25.7.2002 and thereafter 30.7.2007 passed by the State Government declining the request of the Corporations to increase the age of retirement. The petitioners misled the Court in obtaining the interim order and have taken advantage of their own wrong. The petitioners are, therefore, not entitled to any equitable consideration and are not entitled to keep the benefits drawn under the interim orders of the Court. ————