Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order passed by the respondent No. 1, dated 11-11-2009 by which the petitioner has been retired on completing the age of 58 years. ( 2. ) THE brief facts leading to filing of the present petition are that the petitioner was working as Stenographer in the establishment of the respondent No. 1, Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam Limited, Bhopal. He was initially appointed on 1 -10-1988 as a Stenographer and since then has been rendering services with the respondent. It is stated that his date of birth is 2-3-1952 according to which he completed 58 years on 31-3-2010 and, therefore, by the impugned communication dated 11-11-2009, he was proposed to be superannuated from service with effect from 31-3-2010 being aggrieved by which the petitioner has filed the present petition alleging that he is entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years, i.e., the age of superannuation prescribed for the employees of the State Government. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that in view of the provisions of the Rule 60 of the Employees Service Rules, 1994-95 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1994-95") framed by the Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam Limited, Bhopal as no specific provision specifying the age of superannuation is provided in the said Rules, the petitioner is entitled to continue up to the age of 60 years which is the age of superannuation prescribed for the employees of the State Government. It is further submitted that this Court by an interim order dated 18-3-2010 passed in this petition has permitted the petitioner to continue in service. ( 3. ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, per contra, submits that the petition filed by the petitioner is baseless and misconceived inasmuch as the age of retirement in the establishment of the respondent-Company is 58 years and the same has not been enhanced from 58 years to 60 years. ( 3. ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, per contra, submits that the petition filed by the petitioner is baseless and misconceived inasmuch as the age of retirement in the establishment of the respondent-Company is 58 years and the same has not been enhanced from 58 years to 60 years. It is submitted that the respondent-Company is a Company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is one of the five subsidiary companies of Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vikas Nigam (MPAVN), which was subsequently been named as M.P. State Industries Development Corporation (MPSIDC), which is the parent company and is also incorporated as a company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is further clarified that as there is no specific provision regarding the age of superannuation in the Rules of 1994-95, therefore, the respondent-Company since the very beginning has prescribed to and adopted the same age of superannuation fixed by the MPAVN (now MPSIDC) under M.P. Audyogik Vikas Company Employees Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1976'), Rule 9 whereof provides that the age of superannuation shall be 58 years. It is submitted that the respondent-Company has since the very beginning and uniformly applied the aforesaid age of superannuation to all its employees and none of them have been permitted to continue beyond the age of 58 years. ( 4. ) IT is further stated that the issue regarding enhancement of the age of superannuation was taken up by the Co-ordination Committee, in which Managing Directors of all the Audyogik Vikas Nigams are members, and was chaired by the Managing Director of the MPSIDC, in its meeting held on 28-8-1999 and in the said meeting it was clearly decided that the age of superannuation shall continue to be 58 years and shall not be enhanced to 60 years. A copy of the minutes of the Coordination Committee has been filed by the respondents as Annexure R-1/2. A copy of the minutes of the Coordination Committee has been filed by the respondents as Annexure R-1/2. IT is further submitted that in view of the residuary clause in the Service Rules of 1994- 95, which is included as a note therein, it has been clearly provided that the decision of the Managing Director of the MPSIDC, in case of any ambiguity in the rules, shall be final and binding and in such circumstances, as the Managing Director of the MPSIDC has decided and ordered that the age of superannuation shall be 58 years, the contention of the petitioner to that extent is not well founded. During the course of arguments, the respondent-Company has also placed before this Court copy of order passed by the Indore Bench of this Court in Niladri Sen Vs. State of M.P. and others, W.P. No. 1227 of 1998, a similar petition claiming enhancement of age of superannuation, which has been dismissed by order dated 31-8-1998 as well as the order passed in Shaligram Patel Vs. State of M.P. and others, W.P. No. 3126/2011, and connected matters decided on 9-5-2011 whereby an identical claim made by the petitioners therein has also been dismissed. ( 5. ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in reply, submits that the aforesaid decisions of the Indore Bench of this Court are distinguishable inasmuch as the provisions of Rule 60 of the Rules of 1994-95 have not been considered therein. ( 6. ) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the record. It is an undisputed fact that the respondent-Company is a company duly registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is a subsidiary company of the M.P. Audyogik Vikas Nigam (MPAVN) which has subsequently been renamed as the M.P. State Industries Development Corporation (MPSIDC). Clause 21 of the Article of Association of the respondent-Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam Limited, Bhopal, which has been produced before this Court, clearly provides that:- "21. Notwithstanding anything contained in any of these articles, the MPAVN may from time to time, issue such directions or instructions as it may consider necessary in regard to the affairs the conduct of the business of the Company or Directors thereof and in like manner may vary and annul any such direction or instruction. Notwithstanding anything contained in any of these articles, the MPAVN may from time to time, issue such directions or instructions as it may consider necessary in regard to the affairs the conduct of the business of the Company or Directors thereof and in like manner may vary and annul any such direction or instruction. The Directors shall duly comply with and give immediate effect to directions or instructions so issued." ( 7. ) IT is undisputed that since the very beginning Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976 of the MPAVN specifically provides that the age of superannuation of its employees shall be 58 years. IT is also clear and uncontroverted that the note appended to the Rules of 1994-95, a copy of which has been annexed along with the petition, as Annexure P-5, also stipulates that in case of any doubt arising in the implementation of Rules of 1995 or in case there is no provision in respect of any matter relating to service of employees under the Rules of 1994-95, then the decision of the Managing Director, M.P. Audyogik Vikas Nigam (i.e., the MPAVN now MPSIDC) shall be final and binding. ( 8. ) FROM a conjoint reading of the aforesaid Clause 21 of the Memorandum of Association as well as the note appended to the Rules of 1994-95 it is clear that in all matters, in respect of which there is any doubt or which have not been specifically provided for in the rules, the directions issued by the Managing Director of the MPAVN (now MPSIDC) shall be binding upon the M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam, which is the respondent in the present petition and therefore, full powers have been conferred upon the Managing Director of the MPAVN (now MPSIDC) to issue directions in all aspects. From a perusal of point No. 4 contained in document (Annexure R-1/2) filed by the respondents which is a copy of minutes of the meeting of the Co- ordination Committee of the MPSIDC held on 20-8-1999, in which the Managing Directors of all the Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigams including the respondent No. 1 in the present petition, were members clearly indicates that the issue regarding enhancement of the age of superannuation was taken up in the aforesaid meeting and it was specifically decided by the Managing Director of MPAVN (now MPSIDC) that the age of superannuation of Class I to Class IV employees of all the M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigams shall continue to remain 58 years. It is also undisputed and uncontroverted that the respondent-Company has till date superannuated all of its employees on attaining the age of 58 years and has not enhanced or adopted the age of 60 years in respect of any employee. ( 9. ) IN view of the aforesaid circumstances, it is apparent that the age of superannuation of the employees of the respondent-Company has throughout been 58 years and though the issue of enhancement was raised, it was duly considered and rejected in the meeting of the Coordination Committee held on 20-8-1999. It is also clear from a perusal of the aforesaid documents that the Managing Director of the M.P. Audyogik Vikas Nigams (now MPSIDC) has also taken a clear decision in this regard in the aforesaid meeting and held that the age of superannuation shall continue to remain 58 years and shall not be enhanced beyond that. IN the facts and circumstances, it is clear that the age of superannuation in respect of employees of the respondent-Company is 58 years. ( 10. ) IT is, however, contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that in view of the provisions of Rule 60 of the Rules of 1994-95, the age of superannuation of 60 years as prescribed for the employees of the State Government, shall be applicable by implication to the employees of the respondent- Company as well, and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to continue in service up to the age of 60 years. To appreciate the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner it is relevant to take note of the provisions of Rule 60 of the Rules of 1994-95. To appreciate the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner it is relevant to take note of the provisions of Rule 60 of the Rules of 1994-95. The aforesaid, rule which is in the nature of a saving clause, provides that all rules prevailing prior to coming into force of the aforesaid rules shall stand repealed to the extent of the matters covered by the Rules of 1994-95 but any order issued under the repealed rules shall continue to remain in force. The aforesaid rules further provide that on any other issue or subject matter which has not been included in the present rules, the rules of the State Government which are not contrary to the provisions of the Rules of 1994-95 shall apply. ( 11. ) IN my considered opinion, the aforesaid rule does not help the cause of the petitioner for two reasons, firstly, that in accordance with the directions issued by the Managing Director of the M.P. Audyogik Vikas Nigam (now MPSIDC) the age of superannuation of the employees of the respondent-Company has throughout been 58 years which has been uniformly implemented and followed and secondly, on account of the fact that the Rules of 1994-95 themselves provide in the note appended to the rules that in case of any doubt or in respect of matters which are not provided in the rules the directions issued by the Managing Director of the M.P. Audyogik Vikas Nigam shall be final and binding and in exercise of the aforesaid powers the Managing Directors in the meeting of the Coordination Committee held on 20-8-1999 has already taken a decision that the age of superannuation of the employees of the respondent-Company shall continue to remain 58 years. ( 12. ) FROM the aforesaid, it is clear that in accordance with the note contained in the Rules of 1994-95 and Clause 21 of the Article of Association of the respondent- Company the age of superannuation of the respondent-Company had already been determined by the Managing Directors of the M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigams as 58 years and, therefore, there being no ambiguity, vacuum or absence of any provision, the residuary clause in Rule 60 would not become operative and consequently the rules and order of the State Government would not apply to the petitioner. Quite apart from the above the other issues raised by the petitioner have already been considered and rejected by the Indore Bench of this Court in Niladri Sen Vs. State of M.P. and others, W.P. No. 1227 of 1998, decided on 31-8-1998 as well as in Shaligram Patel Vs. State of M.P. and others, W.P. No. 3126/2011 and connected matters decided on 9-5-2011, wherein the Court has specifically held that the respondent being a company and the age of superannuation having been prescribed as 58 years the petitioners therein cannot claim as of right to apply the age of superannuation prescribed for the employees of the State Government. I am in respectful agreement of the view taken in the aforesaid petitions by this Court. ( 13. ) IN view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the petition which deserves to be dismissed, however, it is made clear that as the petitioner has been permitted to continue in service beyond the age of 58 years on account of the interim order passed by this Court, the salary paid to him beyond the age of 58 years shall not be recovered from him however, for all other purposes, i.e., pensionary and retiral dues, if the petitioner is entitled to the same, the age of superannuation shall be treated to be 58 years. ( 14. ) WITH the aforesaid observations, the petition filed by the petitioner being meritless is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.