JUDGMENT U.B. Saha, J. 1. The instant writ petition is filed by the Petitioner, Nagaland Pulp & Paper Company Ltd. (for short, 'NPPC Ltd.') Officers' and Supervisors' Association, a registered service association, for a direction to the Respondents for enhancing the superannuation age of the employees of the Petitioner from 58 years to 60 years, in terms of the letter dated 30.04.2007 issued by the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises and also for quashing the Office letter dated 20.07.2009 issued by the Deputy General Manager (HR&ES), NPPC Ltd. (Annexure-20 the writ petition) releasing one of its member namely, Sri Ashok Kumar Singh wherein he was asked for superannuation w.e.f. 31.10.2009 i.e. on attaining the age of 58 years. 2. Heard Mr. I Longchar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners as well as Mrs. Y Longkumer, learned Addl. Sr. GA for the Respondent State. Also heard Mr. J Roy, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and Mr. Wati Jamir, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 as well as Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned CGSC for the Union of India. 3. Pleaded case of the Petitioner in short is as follows: Petitioner, a registered service association known as NPPC Ltd. Officers' and Supervisors' Association has been registered under the Registration of Societies Act, 1860 and working for the benefits of its members mainly, the person holding the post of Executives, Assistant Shift In-charge, Assistant Manager, Deputy manager and Senior Plant Engineer, Supervisors Personal Assistant and Senior Operators and Senior Supervisors, Senior Foreman and Private Secretaries. According to the Petitioner, Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. (for short, "HPCL") has two units of its own namely, (i) Nagaon Paper Mill (for short, 'NPM') and (ii) Cachar Paper Mill, Panchgram (for short, 'CPM') both in the state of Assam and also two subsidiaries namely, (i) NPPC Ltd. in Tuli, Nagaland and (ii) Hindustan Newsprint Ltd. (for short, 'HNL') in Kerala and all of the aforesaid four companies are governed and regulated by the service rules of HPCL. Rule 24 of the HPCL Service Rules, 1975 prescribes the age of superannuation of board level and below board level executives and non-unionized supervisors. Rule 24 of the HPCL Service Rules, 1975 prescribes the age of superannuation of board level and below board level executives and non-unionized supervisors. Superannuation age of board level and below board level executives and non-unionized supervisors was 58 years which was enhanced to 60 years by the Board of Directors resolution No. 115.06 of the company held on 01.07.1998 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). As the members of the Petitioner are also guided by the provisions of the aforesaid rules, 1975 they are also entitled the benefit of enhancement of superannuation age as prescribed by the HPCL in its board meeting but the same was denied to them on the ground that the members of the Petitioner are working under Respondent No. 6, NPPC Ltd., a subsidiary company of HPCL and it did not adopt the resolution dated 01.07.1998 of HPCL wherein age of superannuation of the employees and the officers of the HPCL were enhanced from 58 years to 60 years. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Respondent No. 1, Union of India by way of filing its counter affidavit tried to resist the claim of the Petitioner. In its affidavit the Respondent No. 1 stated that the Respondent No. 6 has preferred a writ appeal before the division bench of this Court praying for setting aside the ex-parte interim order dated 23.10.2009 wherein this Court stayed the letter dated 20.07.2009 wherein its mentioned that one of the member of the association namely, Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, Sr. Plant Engineer (Mech) will be attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years on 08.10.2009 and he will be released from service of the Respondent No. 6 on superannuation on 31.10.2009 (AN). Thus the writ petition be kept in abeyance till the aforesaid writ appeal being WA 329 of 2009 is disposed of. 5. Respondent No. 6, NPPC Ltd. and its Chief Executive Officer, i.e. Respondent No. 7 filed their affidavit-in-opposition refuting the contentions of the Petitioner and in the said affidavit it is specifically stated that HPCL service rules, 1975 regulates the employees of the board level and below board level executives and non-unionized supervisors of HPCL and Rule 24 of the said rules govern the age of superannuation of the Board Level and below Board level executives and non-unionized supervisors. It is also stated in the affidavit that the government of India vide Office Memorandum dated 19.05.1998 had enhanced the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years in HPCL including NPPC Ltd. Vide resolution No. 115.06 of NPPC Ltd. Board held on 01.07.1998 the superannuation age of 60 years from 58 years was implemented. But subsequently the superannuation age of the NPPC Ltd. was ordered to be reduced to 58 years by the letter dated 20.07.2001 issued by the Govt. of India followed by Resolution No. 128.06 dated 29.06.2001 of the NPPC Ltd. Board. (Annexures-3, 4, 5 and 6 to the affidavit-in-opposition of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 respectively). 6. In paragraph 26 of the affidavit-in-opposition of the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 it is specifically stated that "the employees of HPCL, a holding company, cannot be equated with the employees of NPPC, a subsidiary company. The claim of the writ Petitioner that NPPC is governed by HPC Service Rules, 1975 and the same is uniformly applied to all the four mills including the corporate Head quarter (CHQ), Kolkata is incorrect and without any basis. It is stated that HPC Service Rules were adopted by the Board of Directors of NPPC. It is stated that implementation of any amendment of HPCL Service Rules cannot be made applicable automatically to NPPC employees, unless such amendment is approved and adopted by the Board of Directors of NPPC. In the instant case, the Board of Directors of NPPC did not approve the said amendment concerning enhancement of retirement age of NPPC employee from 58 years to 60 years". 7. While replying to the paragraph 11 and 13 of the writ petition, Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in paragraph 29 of their affidavit-in-opposition specifically stated that Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, Sr. Plant Engineer (Mech) T No. 189 was superannuated from services of the NPPC on 31.10.2009 (AN) on attaining the age of 58 years as per NPPC Service Rules. Being the holding company HPC Ltd. used to transfer employees of subsidiary companies to have gainful utilization of the manpower, that too at the executive level, which is also as per transfer policy of the holding company. There were some stray cases where some employees were sent to HPC from NPPC. HPC never stood as guarantor to the employees of NPPC nor for any liability of NPPC. 8. Respondent Nos. There were some stray cases where some employees were sent to HPC from NPPC. HPC never stood as guarantor to the employees of NPPC nor for any liability of NPPC. 8. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in their affidavit-in-opposition also stated that the policy of the Govt. of India for enhancing the age of superannuation is very clear and there is no ambiguity and the said proposal of enhancement of age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years could not be implemented in NPPC Ltd. since NPPC Ltd. could not fulfill the aforesaid directive of the Govt. of India. More so, the HPCL and NPPC Ltd. are two different legal entities and are guided by the Govt. of India instructions and also are guided by the decisions taken by their Board of Directors. Hence, the prayer of the Petitioner for enhancement of superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years cannot be accepted. 9. Respondent No. 3, HPCL and its Chairman cum Managing director and the Executive Director (Personnel) i.e. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in their counter affidavit adopted the stand of the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7. 10. Mr. Longchar, while urging for the relief sought for would contend that both the units of HPCL and its subsidiary company are guided by the same service rules and regulations. Not only that, the HPCL has the power even to transfer the members of the Petitioners association from NPPC Ltd. to any other unit of HPCL. Therefore, it can be easily said that the decision of the HPCL taken for the benefit of its employees are automatically applicable to the employees and officers working in the NPPC Ltd. 11. He also referred and relied upon paragraph 11 of the writ petition wherein it is stated that one Mr. Abdul Mannan, the present CEO of NPPC and other members of the association were inter-transferred and posted among the four Mills and Corporate Headquarter on various occasions and not only that they are also governed by the same rules and regulations and thus there cannot be any distinction in superannuation age among the employees working in different units/subsidiary company of the HPCL. 12. While responding to the submission of Mr. Longchar, Mr. 12. While responding to the submission of Mr. Longchar, Mr. Roy would contend that HPCL is a distinct and different company than the NPPC Ltd., a subsidiary company of HPCL and both the holding company and subsidiary company are guided by their own respective rules and regulations which are also totally different and they have their different Board of Directors. He further submits that HPCL has its own service rules which are known as HPCL Service Rules, 1975 and the provisions of service rules also govern the age of superannuation of Board level and below Board level Executives and non-unionized supervisors. 13. He again contended that though initially the age of superannuation of the officers and employees of the subsidiary company, namely NPPC Ltd. was enhanced from 58 years to 60 years in view of Office Memorandum dated 19.05.1998 issued by the Govt. of India but subsequently the superannuation age of the officers and employees of NPPC Ltd. was reduced from 60 years to 58 years vide letter dated 20.07.2001 issued by the Govt. of India followed by the resolution No. 128.06 dated 29.06.2001 which is not under challenge in the instant writ petition. 14. He also contended that by the Office Memorandum dated 20.04.2007 the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises enhanced the superannuation age of HPCL employees from 58 years to 60 years and the said decision of the Union of India was implemented vide Circular No. Per/Cal/RR/2(5) dated 30.04.2007 (Anneuxre-8 to the affidavit-in-opposition of the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7) but in case of employees of NPPC Ltd. the said memorandum dated 20.04.2007 has not been given effect to and the Board of Directors of the NPPC Ltd. also did not adopt the decision of the HPCL in its circular dated 30.04.2007, even not taken any independent decision for enhancement of the superannuation age of its employees. Therefore, the claim of the Petitioners cannot be entertained only on the basis of the bald headed statements made in the instant writ petition. 15. He finally contended that transfer of an employee from the subsidiary company to the holding company HPCL and its units is within the transfer policy but there is no common policy regarding the age of superannuation. 15. He finally contended that transfer of an employee from the subsidiary company to the holding company HPCL and its units is within the transfer policy but there is no common policy regarding the age of superannuation. Therefore, even if an employee of the NPPC Ltd is transferred to any other Unit of HPCL, that would not ipso facto entitle him to get the benefit of extension of superannuation age as provided to the employees of HPCL. 16. He also contended that enhancement of the age of retirement of Board Level and below Board Level employees of Central Public Sector Enterprises (for short, 'CPS Es') is wholly based on personal policies (Annexure 7(i) of the affidavit-in-opposition of the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7) wherein it is stated inter alia, "In the meantime, several sick CPS Es have started making profit and these CPS Es have requested for enhancement of age of retirement of its employees from 58 to 60 years. The matter has further been reviewed by the Government and it has now been decided that the Minister-in-Charge of the administrative Ministry/Department concerned is empowered to approve the proposals of CPS Es to enhance the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years, provided that- (a) The CPSE concerned should as per its audited annual accounts have made net profits for the last 3 years continuously and should have a positive net worth during the last three years. (b) The CPSE has not availed any budgetary support during the last 3 years and not budgetary support will be availed by the CPSE in future. (c) The proposals are approved by the Board of Directors of the CPSE concerned and have the concurrence of the Financial Advisor of the concerned administrative Ministry/Department. 17. According to Mr. Roy, though there were proposals for enhancement of age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years for the employees working in the Central Public Sector Enterprises but such proposals were not approved by the Board of Directors of the NPPC Ltd., WP(C) 190 (K) of 2009 Page 9 of 13 hence the enhancement of superannuation age in HPCL cannot be automatically applicable for the employees working in the NPPC Ltd. 18. He relied upon a decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in Bishwambhar Kanaujia and Ors v. Union of India and Ors. He relied upon a decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in Bishwambhar Kanaujia and Ors v. Union of India and Ors. In Civil Rule No. 73(K) of 1999 wherein the Petitioners of that writ petition, employees of NPPC Ltd. claimed pay scale provided to the employees of HPCL and the coordinate Bench of this Court specifically held that the employees of HPCL and NPPC Ltd. both stood on different footings and both the companies have their individual existence and are different legal entities. The employees of NPPC Ltd. are not entitled to claim the parity of service benefits as provided to the employees of HPCL automatically. 19. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Nagaland Pulp & Paper Co. Ltd. and Ors v. Girish Datt Pandey and Ors., WA 27 of 2007 wherein the Division Bench upheld the contention of the NPPC Ltd. inter alia, that the workmen of NPPC Ltd. did not have any right to an upwardly revised pay scale and also rejected the contention of the learned Counsel for the workmen inter alia, that the workmen of NPPC Ltd. should have treated at par with the workmen of HPCL, the Nagaon paper Mill and the Cachar Paper Mill otherwise they would be subjected to a discriminatory treatment. 20. In support of his contention that every company has its separate and distinct legal entity from its shareholders and is a separate juristic person and even when one company is a major shareholder of the other company that would not have any affect on its for the action of its counter part, he placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Karanpura Development Company v. Union of India and Ors., 1998 (Supp) SCC 488 particularly paragraph No. 22 of the reports which is reproduced herein under: 22. It is true that the company is a legal entity distinct from its shareholders. It is a juristic person and the fact that another company is a shareholder, even a major shareholder, does not affect the legal distinction between the two entities. The provisions of the Companies Act provide that in certain circumstances, where one company holds in another company shares up to and above a certain percentage of the equity shares capital, the former is deemed to be a holding company. The provisions of the Companies Act provide that in certain circumstances, where one company holds in another company shares up to and above a certain percentage of the equity shares capital, the former is deemed to be a holding company. As stated earlier it is not necessary for the Appellant to rely on this ground to support its claim. 21. He again placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Associate Bank Officers' Association v. State Bank of India and Ors., (1998) 1 SCC 428 wherein the Apex Court while considering the doctrine of parity in employment and equal pay for equal work stated that "the narrow question which we have to consider is whether looking to the nature of the relationship between the State Bank of India and each of the subsidiary banks, can the employees of the subsidiary banks be considered as employees of the State Bank of India? In view of the clear provisions of Section 50, it is not possible to come to a conclusion that the employees of the subsidiary banks are, for all practical purposes, employees of the State Bank of India". 22. He also placed reliance on a decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in Kastoor Chandel v. Chairman and Managing Director, Hindustan Paper Corpn. and Ors. 2004 (suppl.) GLT 188wherein the coordinate Bench of this Court after taking note of Karanpura Development Company (supra) noted inter alia, it can be conclusively deduced that the HPC and the NPPC are two distinguished juristic persons and the HPC is only a shareholder in NPPC. 23. Mr. Wati Jamir while resisting the submission of Mr. Longchar contended that the officers and employees of NPPC Ltd., Respondent No. 6 are not entitled to the benefits provided by Respondent HPCL to its employees and to the employees of its unit as the officers and employees of NPPC Ltd. is guided by its own rules and regulations which are different than the rules and regulations of HPCL. He adopted the arguments of Mr. Roy, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 on other points. 24. Mr. TB Jamir, learned Counsel for the Respondent-Union of India echoed in the same line of Mr. Roy. 25. He adopted the arguments of Mr. Roy, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 on other points. 24. Mr. TB Jamir, learned Counsel for the Respondent-Union of India echoed in the same line of Mr. Roy. 25. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on consideration of the pleadings as well as the relevant records and the law reports cited, questions arise for decision in the instant writ petition are as follows: whether the employees of the NPPC Ltd., a subsidiary company of the HPCL, are also the employees of HPCL and as to whether the age of superannuation applicable to the employees of HPCL is also applicable to the employees of the subsidiary company, NPPC Ltd. even if the latter company does not approve the decision of the HPCL. 26. In view of the decision of the Apex Court as referred to above and the decision of this Court, the law is no longer res integra so far as the status of the HPCL and NPPC Ltd. as both the companies are distinct and different and distinguished juristic persons and they are guided by their respective board decisions and these two companies are also free to take their own policy either for its management or for prescribing the service conditions of its employees. 27. Mere transfer of an employee from a subsidiary company to its holding company, which has major share in the subsidiary company cannot ipso facto entitle the employees of the subsidiary company to all other benefits provided to the employees of the major shareholder company unless the subsidiary company either adopted the decision of the Board of Directors of the major shareholder company or take any independent decision. Fixation of the superannuation age of employee is policy decision of the employer and unless the employer has taken a policy decision for enhancement of retirement age of its employee, the officers and employee like the members of Petitioner are not entitled to the benefits given to similar type of officers and employees working under different employer. To get the same and similar benefit the Petitioner has to prove that in all respects its members are similar to their counterparts, i.e. the employee of HPCL. 28. To get the same and similar benefit the Petitioner has to prove that in all respects its members are similar to their counterparts, i.e. the employee of HPCL. 28. In the instant case though the Petitioner tried to make out a case in para 11 of the writ petition that one Abdul Mannan was transferred and posted as a Plant Engineer (Mech) in the HPCL and he is continuing there till date is denied by the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and the same is also contrary to the record. It appears from the letter dated 28.04.1982 issued by the General Manager (P&A) of HPCL wherein it is mentioned that the said Sri Abdul Mannan made an application on 14th April, 1998 and he also appeared in the interview held on 4th November, 1981 and being selected he was offered the post of Plant Engineer (Mech) in the pay scale of Rs. 1100-50-1600/-. On going through the aforesaid letter dated 28.04.1982 this Court is not hesitant to say that said Sri Mannan was appointed directly to the post of Plant Engineer (Mech) and he cannot be treated as an employee of the NPPC Ltd. Therefore, even if he was provided with the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation, the same cannot be provided to the other employees or officers who are working in NPPC Ltd. as the employees working under NPPC Ltd. are not employees of HPCL. 29. Though in the instant case the Petitioner tried to make out a case that its members were treated differently than the employees working in the holding company HPCL but failed to establish the same by way of producing any document. On query of this Court the learned Counsel for the Petitioner fairly submits that both HPCL and NPPC Ltd. have their separate Board of Directors and the employees of the respective companies are appointed by their respective authorities, though the service conditions of the employees are same particularly, regarding the transfer liabilities. In view of the above also age prescribed for superannuation in holding company for its employees is not applicable to the employees in subsidiary company and in no way violates the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. 30. In view of the above also age prescribed for superannuation in holding company for its employees is not applicable to the employees in subsidiary company and in no way violates the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. 30. It is also stated at the Bar that the NPPC Ltd. is not functioning for the last 19 years and the employees working under it are getting the salary even when they are not discharging any work. Whether they are getting salary for their work or sitting idly is not the subject matter of this writ petition and therefore it would not be proper on the part of this Court to make any observation on that issue. 31. As it is already held that enhancement of superannuation age in holding company would not automatically apply to the employees working under different subsidiary company unless the decision of holding company is adopted by the latter company, or similar decision is taken by the latter company independently, the instant writ petition is devoid of merit and hence the same is dismissed. 32. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed