JUDGMENT : J.B. Pardiwala, J. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a retired Deputy Chief Accounts Officer of the erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board, has prayed for the following relief’s: "21 (A) To admit and allow this petition. (B) To issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the age of retirement of the petitioner is 60 years and further be pleased to direct the respondent to pay to the petitioner salary and all consequential benefits considering the petitioner on duty till he attained the age of 60 years. (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the above Special Civil Application to direct the respondent to make adhoc payment of the salary and consequential benefits to the petitioner considering him on duty till he attained the age of 60 years. (D) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other appropriate relief as the nature circumstances of the case may require. (E) To award the cost of this petition" 2. It appears from the materials on record that the relief’s prayed for in this writ application are the very same relief’s which were prayed for by the petitioner by filing the Special Civil Application No. 7664 of 1992. The petitioner was made to retire from service by the Board at the age of 58. He came before this Court by way total losses, of filing a Special Civil Application No. 7664 of 1992 that the age of retirement was 60 years and not 58. It appears that the said writ application came to be disposed of on 22nd December 2008 in the following terms: "1. The petitioner has prayed to direct the respondent not to retire the petitioner from service of the Board till he attains the age of 60 years. 2. The petitioner has not joined newly constituted company after the bifurcation of the Gujarat Electricity Board. In that view of the matter this petition cannot be entertained. This petition is accordingly disposed of. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. 3. Liberty to file fresh petition against the newly constituted company." 3. In view of the liberty reserved by this Court, while disposing of the Special Civil Application No. 7664 of 1992, the present writ application has been filed. 4. This petition is accordingly disposed of. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. 3. Liberty to file fresh petition against the newly constituted company." 3. In view of the liberty reserved by this Court, while disposing of the Special Civil Application No. 7664 of 1992, the present writ application has been filed. 4. The case of the petitioner may be summarized as under: 4.1 The petitioner joined the services with the erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board as a Junior Clerk in the year 1956. During his service career, he was promoted to the post of the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer. Such promotion was made effective from 1st May 1992. He was made to retire from service on attaining the age of 58 years with effect from 31st January 1993. 4.2 It is the case of the petitioner that he was wrongly asked or made to retire at the age of 58 years. 4.3 Just before his retirement, the petitioner preferred a detailed representation dated 22nd September 1992 addressed to the Chairman of the erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board in this regard. A copy of the representation is at Annexure : "M" to this petition (page - 73). 4.4 I have gone through the entire representation. In the representation, there is a reference of an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Baroda, in the Reference (I.T.) No. 325 of 1981, wherein, the Tribunal held that the age of retirement would be 60 years and not 58 years. The award of the Tribunal was made a subject matter of challenge by the State of Gujarat by filing a Special Civil Application No. 274 of 1984. The said petition was ordered total losses, to be dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20th September 1991. The Division Bench, while adjudicating the issue, considered in details the Service Regulation 72, which deals with the retirement of the employees of the Board. The very same Regulation has been pressed into service so far as the present petition is concerned. 5. Let me quote a portion of the order of the Division Bench as under: "It is not in dispute that the S.Rs. were so notified on 1/8/1964, and we have verified the notification. The relevant service Regulation is S.R. 72 and it concerns the age of compulsory retirement of the employees of the Board. 5. Let me quote a portion of the order of the Division Bench as under: "It is not in dispute that the S.Rs. were so notified on 1/8/1964, and we have verified the notification. The relevant service Regulation is S.R. 72 and it concerns the age of compulsory retirement of the employees of the Board. According to S.R. 72 as notified under S.13B of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 as stated above, contained the age of compulsory retirement at 55 years with certain provisos. It is further an admitted position that the said S.R. came to be amended making the age of compulsory retirement of the employees of the Board at 58 years with certain provisos. The amended S.R. may be reproduced from page 9 of the compilation of xerox copies: "S.R. 72: The Board referred to its earlier Resolution No. 1081 dtd. 14.4.1973 (G.S.O.218 dtd. 26.4.1972) and has decided to amend the existing S.R. 72. Accordingly S.R. 72 will now stand revised as follows: "An employee is liable to compulsory retirement on the date of his completion of 58 years of age unless specifically reemployed by the Board for a specific period." It is important to note that admittedly the amended service regulation making the age of compulsory retirement as 58 years was not notified under section 13B of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. It is, therefore, the submission of Mr. Shahani for the union that the protective cover of Sec. 13B of the i.e. (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 for these service regulations has not only been notified, but has further not been availed of with the result that in the field of this condition of service, namely, regarding the age of superannuation, the Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 would prevail. It is not in dispute that the relevant standing orders prescribe the age of superannuation at 60 years. According to the submission of Mr. Adhvaryu, the protective cover is neither lost nor required to be applied again in view of the Service Regulation No. 2 which confers power upon the Board. Mr. It is not in dispute that the relevant standing orders prescribe the age of superannuation at 60 years. According to the submission of Mr. Adhvaryu, the protective cover is neither lost nor required to be applied again in view of the Service Regulation No. 2 which confers power upon the Board. Mr. Adhvaryu, therefore, argued that by virtue of the Service Regulation No. 2, which was notified u/s 12B of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 by the aforesaid notification dated 1/8/1964, the aforesaid amendment in S.R. 72 would also stand covered by the protection under section 13B of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 the said Service Regulation is reproduced below: "Except where it is otherwise expressed or implied, these Regulations with such amendment as may be effected by the Board from time to time shall apply to all employees of the Guj. Electricity Board. The GEB shall have power to make such additions, deletions and alterations in these Regulations as may be deemed necessary from time to time." We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Adhvaryu for the simple reason that the power of Board of framing regulations is recognised by the parent statute, namely, the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 as per its provision contained in Section 79(c) total losses, Sec. 79 with clause (c) reads as under: "The Board may by notification in the Official Gazette, make regulations not inconsistent with this Act and the rules made there under to provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:— (a) & (b) XX XX XX (c) the duties of [officers and other employees] of the Board, and their salaries, allowances and other conditions of service; (d) to (k) XX XX XX" If the argument of Mr. Adhvaryu is accepted, it would amount to impliedly accepting the authority of the Board (Subordinate law making body) to notify for all times to come all future amendments to the regulations, under section 13B of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. It is to be noted that such authority is vested only with the Governor. Regulation No. 2 as notified under section 13B in 1964 only recognise power of the Board to amend notified regulations in future and the binding nature of such amendments. It runs parallel to Sec. 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act. It does not and cannot go any further. Regulation No. 2 as notified under section 13B in 1964 only recognise power of the Board to amend notified regulations in future and the binding nature of such amendments. It runs parallel to Sec. 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act. It does not and cannot go any further. It cannot be held to be giving a blanket power to the Board to get such future amendments to regulations covered by the 1964 notification under section 13B of the Standing Orders Act without submitting such future amendments for the scrutiny of and application of mind by the Governor for the purpose of Sec. 13B. In this connection Mr. Adhvaryu had shown to us letter No. IND/KMP1961/ 16420-J dated 9/1/1965 addressed by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Gujarat to the Secretary of the Board on the subject of former changes in the service regulations of the Board. The letter reads: "I am directed to refer to your D.O. Letter No. ENT/III/14424 dated the 7th December 1964 addressed to the Commissioner of Labour, Ahmedabad and copy endorsed to this Department on the subject noted above and to state that once the approval of Commissioner of Labour to the proposed changed in the Service Regulations of the Board is obtained, it is not necessary to obtain the approval Govt. in Education & Labour Department." On the strength of this letter Mr. Adhvaryu submitted that it was not necessary for the Board to get notified the change in S.R.72 making the age of compulsory retirement at 58 from 55 years and it should be treated as having been notified or covered by the earlier notification. In the alternative, he also submitted that what was necessary was the approval of Commissioner of Labour to the proposed changes in the Service Regulations of the Board. We find that there is no force in these submissions for the simple reason that what was conveyed by the letter was with regard to formal changes in Service Regulations. Even in the matter regarding contents of the letter, the facts regarding approval of the Commissioner of Labour ought to have been placed on the record before the learned Tribunal by raising an appropriate contention as has been raised before us. That apart, in our view the letter reproduced above has no consequence upon the question under consideration." 6. Even in the matter regarding contents of the letter, the facts regarding approval of the Commissioner of Labour ought to have been placed on the record before the learned Tribunal by raising an appropriate contention as has been raised before us. That apart, in our view the letter reproduced above has no consequence upon the question under consideration." 6. It appears that the Division Bench decision of this Court referred to above was challenged before the Supreme Court by way of filing a Special Leave Petition. The Special Leave Petition was ordered to be dismissed summarily. In the representation of the petitioner, he pointed out that he was covered by the award total losses, of the Tribunal and he also claimed himself to be a "workman" within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. He also explained in his detailed representation as regards his duties and functions as a Deputy Chief Accounts Officer. In para - 3 of the representation, he further total losses, pointed out that the retirement age of the Accounts Officer is 60 years as held by the Industrial Tribunal, Baroda, in Reference i.e. I.T. No. 420 of 1985. He has also referred to an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in the Reference No. 125 of 1987, wherein, it has been held that the retirement age of the Executive Engineer is 60. He further pointed out that he was governed by the former Saurashtra Government Finance Department’s Resolution No. 60/48 dated 10th November 1951, which provided the age of retirement at the age of 60 years. He also pointed out a circular issued by the Board dated 3rd February 1964 as regards the age of retirement. 7. It appears that the representation filed by the petitioner fell on the deaf ears of the then Chairman of the erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board. The Board did not even bother to look into it and reply to the same. 8. The inaction on the part of the Board in taking an appropriate decision at the relevant point of time compelled the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in her own way tried to make her submissions, but I regret to observe that I have not been able to understand the same. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in her own way tried to make her submissions, but I regret to observe that I have not been able to understand the same. The learned counsel appearing for company also tried to make her own submissions, but I regret to express my inability to understand the same. By merely reading the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply, it is not possible to resolve the controversy, which has been raised in this writ application. 10. I take notice of the fact that the writ application of 1992 was taken up for hearing in the year 2008 by a learned Single Judge and on that date, the Court noticed that the erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board had been dissolved, and it is the Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, who would be the necessary party respondent. In the year 2008 itself, the Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited could have been impleaded as a party respondent but for some reason or the other, the Court asked the petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition impleading the company as a respondent. It took eight years thereafter for this Court to take up this matter. In the year 1992, if the petitioner retired at the age of 58 years, today he would be aged about 82. 11. Next questions of law have been raised. In such circumstances, the respondent-the Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited is directed to immediately look into the detailed representation filed by the petitioner, which is at Annexure : "M" to total losses, this petition (page - 73) and pass appropriate orders in writing as regards the claim of the petitioner regarding the superannuation. While considering the issue, the authorities concerned shall consider the Division Bench decision of this Court referred to above as well as all the awards passed by the Industrial Tribunal in this regard. If the petitioner is to be treated as a "workman" within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, then there is no doubt that the retirement age would be 60 years and not 58. Probably, the only argument available with the respondent is that the petitioner cannot be termed as a "workman", because he retired as a Deputy Chief Accounts Officer. This issue will have to be resolved. Probably, the only argument available with the respondent is that the petitioner cannot be termed as a "workman", because he retired as a Deputy Chief Accounts Officer. This issue will have to be resolved. Let an appropriate decision be taken within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. It will be open for the petitioner to make his submissions in person if he wants to, and for that, the respondent shall give him an opportunity of hearing by informing him about the date of the hearing well in advance. Let the entire exercise be completed, as directed by this Court. Any lapse on the part of the respondent will be viewed very strictly. 12. With the above, this writ application is disposed of. Direct service is permitted.