ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal is against the judgement dated 31.07.2007 by which the writ petitioner/appellant's writ petition W.P. (S) No. 4089 of 2005 has been dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/appellant was employee of Hazaribagh Mines Board, Hazaribagh and this establishment was constituted by virtue of the Hazaribagh Mines Board Act, 1936. The petitioner, as per the prevailing rules, was to retire on attaining the age of 58 years. However, on 26.10.2004 a notification was issued by the Government of Jharkhand conveying that the age of superannuation of the Government employees shall be 60 years instead of earlier age of superannuation of 58 years. Copy of this notification is annexed in this L.P.A. as Annexure-1. According to learned counsel for the appellant, said decision was not followed in Municipalities and Municipal Corporations, therefore, a writ petition W.P.(S) No. 152 of 2005 along with several other writ petitions were filed before the Single Bench of this Court which were decided vide judgement dated 31.01.2005. 4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant submitted that these writ petitions were allowed and direction was given to the State Government to take a decision with respect to enhancement of the age of the employees of the Municipalities and Municipal Corporations in the light of the Government decision dated 26.10.2004. It is further submitted that in the judgement delivered in W.P.(S) No. 152 of 2005 Jagat Prasad Singh & Others Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others, there is a reference of not only Municipalities and Municipal Corporations, but also there is reference of the Boards and petitioner was employee of the Board and, therefore, was entitled to have the benefit of enhancement of the age in the light of the decision taken by the Government dated 26.10.2004 by which benefit has been extended to the employees of the Municipalities and Municipal Corporations by virtue of order passed in W.P.(S) No. 152 of 2005. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in the case of Bhuneshwar Gope and others Vs. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in the case of Bhuneshwar Gope and others Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others reported in 2006(3) JLJR 569 , same benefit was given to the employees of Koderma Mica Unit of the Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Limited who challenged the order of retirement of the employees of that department who were sought to be retired on attaining the age of 58 years instead of 60 years. It is also submitted that in the judgement of Bhuneshwar Gope (Supra), some earlier judgements were also referred wherein same benefit has been extended to the employees. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant further submitted that the respondent Board itself took a decision to enhance the age of superannuation of the employees of the Board vide its resolution dated 30.12.2006 from 58 years to 60 years. However, while passing this resolution, the Hazaribagh Mines Board arbitrarily fixed the date 14.08.2006 to give benefit to the employees who to retire on or after 14.08.2006. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge though has found fixing of the date as 14.08.2006 for giving benefit of enhancement of age arbitrary but also dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner on other grounds. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent wherein the respondents have changed their stand and submitted that after the decision rendered by this Court, the Board found that decision to enhance the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years was taken under pressure of the employees. However, the matter has been referred to the Government and is pending before the Government for taking a decision. It is submitted that the respondent Board should not have taken that much of time in taking decision with respect to some benefit which has been already given to all Government and other employees. It is also submitted that the copy of this order dated 26.10.2004 was forwarded to all departments obviously for the purpose that those departments and the Board may also take the same decision. It is also submitted that the copy of this order dated 26.10.2004 was forwarded to all departments obviously for the purpose that those departments and the Board may also take the same decision. It is further submitted that from the judgements referred to above, it is clear that various other employees who are not the State Government's employees, they also got the benefit because of the decision of the Government dated 26.10.2004 therefore, the appellant who retired in the month of July, 2005, cannot be made to suffer because of the reason of not taking decision in time by the respondent Board. It is also submitted that the date fixed by the Board i.e., 14.08.2006 is arbitrary and it should have been from 02.01.2005 in view of Annexure-5 whereby the benefit has been extended to the employees from 02.01.2005 7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the relevant orders as well as reasons given in the impugned judgement. 8. Undisputedly, the petitioner was employee of Hazaribagh Mines Board established by virtue of Hazaribagh Mines Board Act, 1936. The petitioner's service conditions are governed by the rules framed under Section 12(f) of the Act of 1936 and it is also not in dispute that as per the rules which were prevailing at a relevant time, the age of superannuation was 58 years. Undisputedly, the rule fixing the age of superannuation of the employees of Hazaribagh Mines Board has not been amended. The learned Single Judge, after considering Section 11 of the Act of 1936 which is with respect to the provisions for establishment of the Board and power of the State Government in the matter of appointment and with respect to the power of the Government in fixing the salaries, pension, provident fund etc., held that only the Urban Development Department has authority and right to fix the age of compulsory retirement (superannuation). So far as this finding is concerned, we do not find any illegality in this because of the reason that the provision of Section 12(f) is very clear and it clearly provides that the State Government shall have power to make rules to provide for all or any of the matters referred in Sub Clauses (a) to (h) under Section 12 of the Act of 1936. Sub Clause (f) under Section 12 clearly provides that with respect to power to prescribe duties, matters relating to appointment, leave, fining, suspension and removal of any member of the establishment of the Board, the State Government may frame the rules. It is also not in dispute that consequence of enhancement of age of retirement results into financial implications and the financial control vests in the State Government as State Government is required to provide the funds. In view of the above reasons, the appellant could have retired only in accordance with the rules and not otherwise. Admittedly, the appellant was not employee of the State Government and, therefore, he is not governed by the notification dated 26.10.2004 and, therefore, learned counsel for the appellant rightly did not submit that by virtue of notification dated 26.10.2004 the appellant's age of superannuation stands enhanced from 58 years to 60 years. 9. However, there is some force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Hazaribagh Mines Board has arbitrarily fixed the age of superannuation of the employee to give benefit to the employees who retired on or after 14.08.2006. 10. Learned Single Judge carefully considered this aspect of the matter and held that the age of superannuation of all employees have been enhanced only because of the reason that one of the employee Ajitanand Prasad since was superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years, therefore, it has been decided that all employees who retired on or after 14.08.2006 shall be entitled to the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation. The learned Single Judge very rightly observed that the decision was taken in most perfunctory manner and before taking such vital policy decision, the Board has not considered the relevant aspect such as financial condition and requirement of work etc. The learned Single Judge also observed that the financial condition of the Board was bad. The learned Single Judge also observed that the State Government is only competent to take such policy decision and that too on consideration of the relevant aspect such as financial condition, the need and whether the Board is achieving the purpose for which it was created. Therefore, in view of the above, the learned Single Judge rightly quashed the resolution of the Board. Therefore, in view of the above, the learned Single Judge rightly quashed the resolution of the Board. At this juncture, it will be relevant to mention here that the Board is not aggrieved against the quashing of its resolution dated 30.12.2006 by which the age of superannuation is sought to be enhanced from 58 years to 60 years with effect from 14.08.2006. The Board in the counter affidavit filed in L.P.A. has stated that decision was taken under the pressure of the employee. The Board now stated in the counter that the Board has forwarded the matter to the State Government for taking the decision with respect to the issue of the enhancement of age of superannuation of the employees of the Hazaribagh Mines Board. 11. Be that as it may, we do not find the resolution dated 30.12.2006 to be legal, therefore, apart from the fact that such decision can be taken by the State, in that situation, there is no decision of the Board to enhance the age of superannuation and, therefore, the petitioner/appellant cannot get any relief. 12. So far as judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are concerned, we may consider the judgement delivered in the case of Jagat Prasad Singh (Supra) wherein the issue of enhancement of the age of Municipalities and Municipal Corporations was there. In the said judgement, there is reference of “Board”. That reference is relating to the Municipal Board and not to the all other Boards and it could not have been because the issue before the Single Bench of this Court was with respect to the enhancement of the age of the employees of the Municipal Boards, Municipal Corporations and not other Boards. In that decision of Jagat Prasad Singh's case, the direction was given to Municipalities to take decision and it has not been held that by virtue of the order of the State Government dated 26.10.2004, the Municipal employees will get the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 26.10.2004. In that decision of Jagat Prasad Singh's case, the direction was given to Municipalities to take decision and it has not been held that by virtue of the order of the State Government dated 26.10.2004, the Municipal employees will get the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 26.10.2004. So has rightly been done in view of the fact that if the Government's decision is not binding upon the autonomous bodies and corporations etc., then that may be treated to be advice to the corporations which can be accepted by the corporations or bodies according to their own need and within the framework of their rules by taking decision and amending the rules etc. In the case of Bhuneshwar Gope & Others (Supra), the learned Single Judge considered another case i.e. W.P.(S) 190 of 2005 decided on 31.01.2005 wherein same issue was raised by the employees of the Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation and in that case the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation already passed the resolution and agreed in principle to enhance the age of retirement of its employees from 58 years to 60 years but that decision was not implemented and, therefore, direction was given to implement the decision. As already stated, in case of respondent Board, no such decision has been taken and the decision which has been taken was found to be absolutely illegal therefore, no direction can be issued to the respondents to implement its any decision because no decision is in existence. In the case of Bhuneshwar Gope and Others some other decisions of this Court were also considered which were W.P.(S) No. 2247 of 2005 and W.P.(S) No. 190 of 2005. These two cases were disposed of with the consent of the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon Division Bench judgement of this Court delivered in L.P.A. No. 66 of 2007 [State of Jharkhand & Others Vs. Shiv Kumar Singh & Another] decided on 17.07.2007. In that case the issue involved was with respect to the enhancement of the age of superannuation of the employees of Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board who took decision in its meeting dated 28.07.2006 to raise the age of superannuation of its officers and employees from 58 years to 60 years in pursuance of the resolution dated 26.10.2004 of the State Government. According to learned counsel for the appellant, Special Leave to Appeal preferred against the said judgement delivered in the case of Shiv Kumar Singh & Another has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This judgement also clearly indicates that there was a decision of the said Pollution Control Board itself to enhance the age of superannuation and, therefore, in that view of the matter, retirement of the employees were found wrong who were sought to be retired on attaining the age of 58 years instead of retiring them on attaining the age of 60 years. The facts of the above case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 13. Relying upon those judgements and in view of the facts of the case that Board of Directors in the case of Bhuneshwar Gope & others also took decision on 20.12.2004 to enhance the age of superannuation, the writ petition of Bhuneshwar Gope was decided. At the cost of repetition, we may state that in the present matter, no such decision is in existence which may be enforced. 14. In view of the above reasons, we do not find any merit in the present Letters Patent Appeal and we also do not find any illegality in the impugned order. However, in view of the stand taken by the Board in the counter affidavit that matter has been referred to the State Government with respect to deciding the issue of enhancement of age of superannuation of the employees of the Board, the State Government is directed to take the decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, if it has not decided yet finally.