JUDGMENT : ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. These Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions raise identical questions of facts and law and have been heard together. Writ Appeal No. 1056 of 2008 is being treated as the leading Writ Appeal and reference of pleadings in the said Writ Appeal shall suffice in deciding all the cases. 2. W.A. No. 1056 of 2008 has been filed by the State of Kerala challenging the judgment dated 22.08.2007 in W.P. (C) No. 22236 of 2005. W.P. (C) No. 22236 of 2005 was filed by the Kerala Land Development Corporation Employees' Union and 82 employees challenging the decision of the State Government refusing to approve the proposal of the Kerala Land Development Corporation to increase the age of retirement of its employees from 55 to 60 years. The Learned Single Judge quashed the order of the State Government and directed that employees of the Corporation shall be entitled to continue in service till 60 years as resolved by the Board of Directors in its meeting dated 14.05.1998. 3. The other Writ Appeals have been filed by the employees of the Corporation challenging the judgments of the learned Single Judge by which judgments the Writ Petitions filed by the petitioners claiming entitlement to continue till the age of 60 years has been dismissed. 4. Brief facts of the case as emerged from the pleadings in W.A. No. 1056 of 2008 are as follows: The Kerala Land Development Corporation (for short, the Corporation) is a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Corporation was constituted by the State Government. Articles of Association of the Corporation requires that prior approval of the Government is required with regard to several matters enumerated therein. One of the matters enumerated is the conditions of service, Provident Fund and other Rules. The State Government approved the Kerala Land Development Corporation Service Rules by order dated 20.09.1979 wherein under Rule 21, the age of retirement of every employees of the Corporation was fixed as 55 years. The Board of Directors vide its resolution dated 14.05.1998 resolved to raise the age of retirement of the employees of the Corporation from 55 to 60 years. The said resolution was submitted to the Government for approval as required by the Articles of Association. The Board of Directors vide its resolution dated 14.05.1998 resolved to raise the age of retirement of the employees of the Corporation from 55 to 60 years. The said resolution was submitted to the Government for approval as required by the Articles of Association. The State Government in reference to the letter of the Managing Director of the Corporation informed that the request for enhancing retirement age of the employees of the Corporation cannot be considered keeping in view of the present state of affairs of the Corporation which is being running on loss. The said letter of the State Government dated 30.11.1999 is annexed as Ext.P7. The Corporation repeated its requests to approve the decision of enhancement of retirement age. Letter dated 09.04.2003 was sent by the Deputy Secretary of Agricultural Production Commissioner stating that the request is under consideration. Writ Petition No. 12452 of 2004 was filed by the employees of the Corporation praying for a direction to consider their representation by which they have prayed for taking a decision regarding enhancement of retirement age. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition by judgment dated 04.06.2004 directing the Government to take a decision within four months from the production of copy of the said judgment. By letter dated 15.10.2004, the State Government communicated the Managing Director of the Corporation that the Government has taken a decision to reject the request to enhance retirement age from 55 to 60 years. 5. Writ petition No. 22236 of 2005 was filed by the Employees' Union of the Corporation as 1st petitioner and petitioners 2 to 83 being its employees challenging the aforesaid decision of the State Government. In the Writ Petition the following prayers have been made:- (i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P8, P10 and P12 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or appropriate writ direction or order. (ii) To declare that the declining of approval by the 1st respondent Government for the Rules made by the 3rd respondent Corporation enhancing the age of superannuation to 58/60 years for effectuating and giving full effect to Ext.P1 scheme to its employees is illegal, arbitrary, ultra vires and void. (ii) To declare that the declining of approval by the 1st respondent Government for the Rules made by the 3rd respondent Corporation enhancing the age of superannuation to 58/60 years for effectuating and giving full effect to Ext.P1 scheme to its employees is illegal, arbitrary, ultra vires and void. (iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the 1st respondent to grant approval to the Rules made by the 3rd respondent-Corporation enhancing the age of superannuation of its employees to 58/6 years to enable them to receive superannuation pension contemplated by paragraph 22(1)(a) of Ext.P1 Pension Scheme, 1995 from the date of coverage of the Scheme. (iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing respondents 1 to 3 to retain the petitioners 82 to 83 and to continue them in service till they attain the age of 58/60 years. (v) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing respondents 1 to 3 to grant and disburse full superannuation pension to the petitioners 2 to 83 on their retirement on attaining the age of 58/60 years. (vi) To issue other appropriate writ, direction or order which this Honourable Court deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case. (vii) To award costs to the petitioner." 6. In the Writ Petition counter affidavit was filed by the Corporation wherein the Corporation pleaded that enhancement of retirement age of the employees is a policy matter to be decided by the Government. The establishment expenditure of a fully owned Government Corporation is the responsibility of the Government. The State also filed a counter affidavit supporting its decision. It was pleaded that the Corporation is a fully Government owned Corporation and establishment expenditure of a fully owned Government Corporation is the responsibility of the Government. It was pleaded that considering the present state of affairs that the Corporation is running on loss, enhancement of retirement age of the employees cannot be considered. It was further stated that there are other Public Sector Undertakings wherein the retirement age is 55 years. 7. It was pleaded that considering the present state of affairs that the Corporation is running on loss, enhancement of retirement age of the employees cannot be considered. It was further stated that there are other Public Sector Undertakings wherein the retirement age is 55 years. 7. Learned Single Judge heard the Writ Petition and relying on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kavirajan vs. KSBC Limited, (2007) 2 KLT 917 allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the order of the State Government and directed that employees of the Corporation will continue in service till the age of 60 years. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the State has come up in W.A. No. 1056 of 2008. 8. Shri P.I. Davis, learned Senior Government Pleader challenging the decision of the learned Single Judge has contended that fixation of age of retirement by the State Government is a policy decision and the State Government after considering all relevant facts have taken a decision not to increase the age of retirement from 55 to 60 years which decision was in the jurisdiction of the State Government and cannot be said to be arbitrary. It is submitted that judgment of this Court in Kavirajan's Case (supra) was on its own facts. There were three categories of employees in that Corporation who have different age of retirement and it is in that context that this Court allowed the regular employees of that Corporation also to avail the age of superannuation till 58 years. Learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the Apex Court in a large number of cases has laid down that fixation of age of retirement is in the domain of policy decision of the State which need not be interfered in exercise of judicial review by this Court. It is submitted that there is no question of discrimination of retirement age with regard to employees of Public Sector Undertakings and since fixation of retirement age of several Corporations depends on several factors, which are different in each of the Corporations. 9. Shri O.V. Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Advocate for the writ petitioners contends that judgment of the learned Single Judge was passed based on the judgment in Kavirajan's case (supra) and facts of the said case are similar to the facts of the present case. 9. Shri O.V. Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Advocate for the writ petitioners contends that judgment of the learned Single Judge was passed based on the judgment in Kavirajan's case (supra) and facts of the said case are similar to the facts of the present case. It is further submitted that Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 has been enforced in the Corporation in exercise of the power under Section 6A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1995 by the Central Government under which an employee is entitled to continue till the age of 58 years which being a Statutory provision, the State Government cannot prescribe any different age of retirement. It is further contended that decision of the State Government rejecting the prayer of the Corporation cannot be said to be a policy decision, rather the said decision has been rendered by the State Government in exercise of the power under which amendment in the Rules regarding conditions of service required prior approval of the State. Prior approval of the State cannot be refused in the event the decision of the Corporation is in accordance with the provisions of law. The Corporation have considered all aspects of the matter in the meeting of the Board of Directors dated 14.05.1998 for raising the age of superannuation from 55 to 60 years which decision cannot be said to be contrary to any provision of law and the State Government could not have refused to approve the said decision. It is submitted that there are large number of Corporations where age of superannuation is 58 and 60 years and not permitting to raise the age of superannuation with regard to the employees of the Corporation is arbitrary and discriminatory under article 14 of the Constitution of India. 10. Learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court which shall be referred to while considering the submissions in detail. 11. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused records. 12. 10. Learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court which shall be referred to while considering the submissions in detail. 11. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused records. 12. The question to be considered in the present case is as to whether the decision of the State Government refusing to approve the resolution of the Corporation dated 14.05.1998 to raise the age of retirement from 55 to 60 years was a decision which is unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside by this Court in exercise of the judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. The Corporation is a Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act. Under Article 36 of the Articles of Association of the Corporation, prior approval of the Governor is required. Article 36(x) and (xi) of the Articles of Association are relevant which are to the following effect:- "36. The following matters shall require the prior approval of the Governor:- (x) The annual revenue budget of the company in case these is an element of deficit which is proposed to be met by obtaining funds from Government. (xi) Rules of the company governing the conditions of services, provident fund and other rules, creation of reserve and special funds." 14. The Kerala Land Development Corporation Limited Service Rules (for short, the Service Rules) was approved by the Government as per order dated 20.09.1979. Rule 21 provides for retirement which is to the following effect:- "21. Retirement. Every employee shall retire on completion of 55 years of age. An employee may voluntarily retire after completion of 20 years of service after giving not less than three months' notice." From the above it is clear that age of retirement of employees of the Corporation is fixed as 55 years which could have been changed only with the prior approval of the Government. 15. In the present case a resolution was passed by the Corporation to enhance the retirement age from 55 to 60 years which resolution was sent to the Government. The Government refused to approve the said resolution and sent communication dated 09.04.2003 which is to the following effect: "From The Agricultural Production Commissioner. To The Managing director, Kerala Land Development Corporation, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram. The Government refused to approve the said resolution and sent communication dated 09.04.2003 which is to the following effect: "From The Agricultural Production Commissioner. To The Managing director, Kerala Land Development Corporation, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram. Sir, Subject: KLDC - Raising the retirement age of employees - reg. Reference:- 1. Memorandum dated 30.10.2001 submitted to the Honourable Minister (Agriculture and Coir) by KLDC Employees Union. 2. Your letter No. KLDC/AD1/SR/OO dated 25.5.2000 With regard to the reference cited above, I am directed to inform you that Government has not laid down any policy to raise the retirement age. Hence the request to raise retirement age of employees in Kerala Land Development Corporation cannot be considered keeping in view of the present state of affairs in the Corporation, which is being run on loss. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Deputy Secretary, For Agricultural Production Commissioner." The Corporation reiterated its request for raising the age of retirement by subsequent letter dated 22.10.2003. Writ Petition No. 12452 of 2004 was also filed by the employees where a direction was issued by this Court on 04.06.2004 directing the State Government to consider the representation of the employees wherein they have claimed for approval of enhancement of retirement age from 55 to 60 years. After the judgment of this Court, the State Government by letter dated 15.10.2004, communicated to the Managing Director its refusal to approve the enhancement of age of retirement. The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid decision of the Government. 16. The Corporation being a Company fully owned by the Government, the Government has to bear the financial liabilities of the Corporation to some extent. The Corporation has filed a counter affidavit wherein the Corporation itself has pleaded that the Government bears the establishment expenses. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the counter is as follows:- "5. It is further submitted that as per Government Order G.O. (Rt.) No. 35/97 AD dated 10.01.1997 this Corporation is having supervision charges @ 10% of workers executed by the Corporation so as to enable the Corporation to meet its establishment expenditure. But if the Corporation could not get sufficient amount as supervision charges required to meet the establishment expenditure, the Government have to provide funds by way of establishment grant etc. to meet establishment expenditure. 6. It is further submitted that enhancement of retirement age is a policy matter to be decided by the Government. But if the Corporation could not get sufficient amount as supervision charges required to meet the establishment expenditure, the Government have to provide funds by way of establishment grant etc. to meet establishment expenditure. 6. It is further submitted that enhancement of retirement age is a policy matter to be decided by the Government. The establishment expenditure of a fully owned Government Corporation is the responsibility of the Government. So by raising the retirement age, the additional financial commitment will have to be met by the Government." Article 36(x) of the Articles of Association as quoted above also contemplate financial grant by the State to cover up the deficit of the Corporation. 17. Decision to enhance the age of retirement from 55 to 60 years obviously shall put financial burden on the State and State is fully competent to take a decision regarding approval or disapproval of the resolution of the Board of Directors of the Corporation. As noted above, any decision of the Corporation to change the service conditions, i.e. Rule 21 of the Service Rules, requires prior approval. The State Government has refused to approve the said decision. One of the reasons mentioned in letter dated 30.11.1999 is that the Corporation is running on loss meaning thereby that the State was not ready to bear the financial burden. 18. The Apex Court in K. Nagaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1985) 1 SCC 523 had occasion to consider the nature of the decision of the State Government regarding age of superannuation of its employees. In the above case, in the State of Andhra Pradesh age of retirement was increased from 55 to 58 years. When the new Government came into power, it took a decision to reduce the retirement age from 58 to 55. Several Writ Petitions were filed by the employees challenging the notification issued by the State. Writ Petitions were dismissed by the High Court against which the matter was taken in the Supreme Court. The Apex Court in the said case held that decision regarding age of retirement has to be left to the discretion of the State Government which has to balance various factors. In paragraph 7 the following was laid down: "7. This is the broad outline of the petitioners' case. The Apex Court in the said case held that decision regarding age of retirement has to be left to the discretion of the State Government which has to balance various factors. In paragraph 7 the following was laid down: "7. This is the broad outline of the petitioners' case. We will presently set out the specific contentions advanced before us but, before doing so, it would be necessary to indicate the approach which, in our opinion, should be adopted while examining a question of the present nature namely, the fixation of the age of retirement. Barring a few services in a few parts of the world as, for example, the American Supreme Court, the term and conditions of every public service provide for an age of retirement. Indeed, the proposition that there ought to be an age of retirement in public services is widely accepted as reasonable and rational. The fact that the stipulation as to the age of retirement is a common feature of all of our public services establishes its necessity, no less than its reasonableness. Public interest demands that there ought to be an age, of retirement in public services. The point of the peak level of efficiency is bound to differ from individual to individual but the age of retirement cannot obviously differ from individual to individual for that reason. A common scheme of general application governing superannuation has therefore to be evolved in the light of experience regarding performance levels of employees, the need to provide employment opportunities to the younger sections of society and the need to open up promotional opportunities to employees at the lower levels early in their career. Inevitably, the public administrator has to counterbalance conflicting Claims while determining the age of superannuation. On the one hand, public services cannot be deprived of the benefit of the mature experience of senior employees; on the other hand, a sense of frustration and stagnation cannot be allowed to generate in the minds of the junior members of the services and the younger sections of the society. The balancing of these conflicting claims of the different segments of society involves minute questions of policy which must, as far as possible, be left to the judgment of the executive and the legislature, These claims involve considerations of varying vigour and applicability. The balancing of these conflicting claims of the different segments of society involves minute questions of policy which must, as far as possible, be left to the judgment of the executive and the legislature, These claims involve considerations of varying vigour and applicability. Often, the Court has no satisfactory and effective means to decide which alternative, out of the many competing ones, is the best in the circumstances of a given case. We do not suggest that every question of policy is outside the scope of judicial review or that, necessarily, there are no manageable standards for reviewing any and every question of policy. Were it so, this Court would have declined to entertain pricing disputes covering as wide a range as case to mustard oil. If the age of retirement is fixed at an unreasonably low level so as to make it arbitrary and irrational, the Court's interference would be called for, though not for fixing the age of retirement but for mandating a closer consideration of the matter. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore, violative of Article 14; E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1974 (2) SCR 348 : AIR 1974 SC 555 . But while resolving the validity of policy issues like the age of retirement, it is not proper to put the conflicting claims in a sensitive judicial scale and decide the issue by finding out which way the balance tilts. That is an exercise which the administrator and the legislature have to undertake. As stated in the Supreme Court and the Judicial Function Edited by Philips B. Kurland, Oxford and IBH Publishing Co., Page 13. Judicial self restraint is itself one of the factors to be added to the balancing process, carrying more or less weight as the circumstances seem to require. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Usmania University vs. V.S. Muthurangam and Others, (1997) 10 SCC 741 . In the above case there was difference in the age of superannuation of teaching and non-teaching staff. The retirement age of teaching staff was 60 years and age of retirement of non-teaching staff was 58 years. In the above case there was difference in the age of superannuation of teaching and non-teaching staff. The retirement age of teaching staff was 60 years and age of retirement of non-teaching staff was 58 years. Section 38(1) of the Usmania University Act, 1959 provided that conditions of service relating to salaried officers of the University shall as far as possible be uniformed in respect of the salary payable to them. In the above context the Apex Court held that there was no reason not to have uniform age of retirement of teaching and non-teaching staff. In the paragraph 8 the following was laid down: "8. After giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned Solicitor General and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, it appears to us that teaching and non teaching staff of the University are distinct and separate categories. The nature of duties to be performed by the teaching and non teaching staff of the University are also different. Therefore, apart from different scales of pay in the hierarchy of the service in both teaching and non teaching departments, it may be held that the nature of service of the two distinct and different departments namely the teaching and non teaching departments, is inherently different. Mr. Solicitor General is justified in his contention that S.38 (1) of the Act recognizes flexibility and the expression as far as possible inheres in it an inbuilt flexibility. There was impelling necessity for the University to change the age of superannuation of the teaching staff in order to give effect to the recommendations of the University Grants Commission. The University, in our view, will be justified within the ambit of S.38(1) to introduce different conditions of service for different categories of employees if such different conditions become necessary for the exigency of the administration and if it is otherwise impracticable to bring uniformity in the conditions of service of different categories of its employees. For the same reason, it is permissible for the University to introduce the age of superannuation differently for different categories of the employees, if introduction of such different age of superannuation can be justified on the anvil of felt need of the administration. For the same reason, it is permissible for the University to introduce the age of superannuation differently for different categories of the employees, if introduction of such different age of superannuation can be justified on the anvil of felt need of the administration. But if uniform conditions of service for teaching and non teaching staff of the University is not otherwise impracticable, the University is under an obligation to maintain such uniformity because of the mandate of S.38(1) of the Act. In the instant case, we do not find that it is not at all practicable for the University to maintain the parity in the age of superannuation of both teaching and non teaching staff. There is no compulsion under the law that University is bound to maintain the same age of superannuation of its teaching and non teaching staff as is available to the employees of the State Government. Because there is no such statutory compulsion to maintain the age of superannuation of the teaching staff at par with Government employees, the University has increased the age of superannuation of its teaching staff. Hence, University can easily raise the age of superannuation of the non teaching staff for bringing a parity in the service conditions of the salaried staff of the University by fulfilling the mandate under S.38 (1) of the Act. The age of superannuation of the employees of some of the Universities in the State of Andhra Pradesh is different to that of the employees of the State Government of Andhra Pradesh. It has been rightly contended by Mr. Subba Rao that although the State Government itself has authority to regulate the conditions of service of the employees of the Andhra Pradesh University, the State Government has fixed the age of superannuation of the employees of the said University differently. Therefore, it cannot be contended that it is either undesirable or impracticable to bring uniformity in the age of superannuation of the teaching and non teaching staff of the Osmania University. Therefore, it cannot be contended that it is either undesirable or impracticable to bring uniformity in the age of superannuation of the teaching and non teaching staff of the Osmania University. Hence, the decision of the High Court that when the age of the teaching staff of the University has been increased to 60 years the age of superannuation of the non teaching staff should also be changed in the similar manner in order to bring parity in the service conditions of the salaried staff of the University in obedience of the mandate under S.38(1) of the Act is justified. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned decision of the High Court. These appeals, therefore, fail and are dismissed without any order as to costs." The above judgment is clearly distinguishable and has no application to the facts of the present case. In the said case the issue was different, as to whether there was any justification for providing different age of retirement between teaching and non-teaching staff whereas the Statute provided uniformity as far as possible. The said case does not help the petitioners. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed much reliance on the decision in Kavirajan's case (supra). In the above case, petition was filed by the employees of the Kerala State Beverages Corporation Limited for enhancement of age of superannuation. The Beverage Corporation is also a Company registered under the Companies Act and fully owned by the Government. There was similar provision that with regard to change in service conditions, approval of the State Government is required. The Board of Directors had decided to increase the age to 58 years which decision was not approved by the Government. The Division Bench in the said case observed that although it is well settled that the age of the employees cannot be increased by the order of the court, the Beverage Corporation being a profit making Corporation and there being other factors, i.e., 1500 workers are abkari workers whose retirement age is 60 years and 650 employees are working on deputation basis whose retirement age is 58 years. Majority of workers having retirement age beyond 58 years, there is no justification for regular workers to retire at 55 years. The Division Bench also relied on the judgment of the Usmania University's case (supra). Majority of workers having retirement age beyond 58 years, there is no justification for regular workers to retire at 55 years. The Division Bench also relied on the judgment of the Usmania University's case (supra). The following was laid down in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4: "2. There are 113 public sector undertakings owned by the Kerala Government out of which in seven undertakings like Kerala Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. etc. the retirement age of employees is 60 years. In majority of the undertakings, now the retirement age is 58 years. In public sector undertakings of Central Government in State of Kerala the age of superannuation is 60. In Travancore Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., one of the Kerala Government company, the age of retirement is 60 and it is a sick industry. The Board of Directors decided to reduce the age to 58 as it is a sick industry, but, Government decided to roll back the retirement age to 60 years itself as can be seen from Ext. P8 in WP (C) No. 15337 of 2006 dated 24/06/2006. However, even though in five companies the retirement age is 55 years, in majority of the public sector undertakings owned by the Kerala Government, the retirement age is 58. The retirement age of the Government employees in Kerala is only 55, but, Government employees have got various chances of promotion and they are entitled to get Government pension. Even though in five of the Government Companies the age of retirement is 55, the major Government Companies where retirement age is fixed as 55 are four in number viz., Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Kerala State Electricity Board, Kerala Water Authority and Kerala State Housing Board. In those undertakings there is a good pension scheme. But, as far as Kerala State Beverages Corporation is concerned, there is no pension scheme. Of course, they will be entitled to some sort of contributory pension because of the pension scheme under the Employees Provident Fund Pension Scheme. But, for entitlement of full pension, they have to attain the age of 58. In another similarly placed public sector undertaking (LBS Centre), Directors decided to extend the age of retirement from 55 to 58 so as to get the pension from EPF pension scheme. Ext. P4 is produced to prove the same. In paragraph 1 of Ext. But, for entitlement of full pension, they have to attain the age of 58. In another similarly placed public sector undertaking (LBS Centre), Directors decided to extend the age of retirement from 55 to 58 so as to get the pension from EPF pension scheme. Ext. P4 is produced to prove the same. In paragraph 1 of Ext. P4 it is stated as follows: "The Director, LBS Centre for Science and Technology has reported that the centre is following the EPF pension scheme and as per the EPR pension scheme 1995 a member is eligible for Superannuation after attaining the age of 58 years. Hence the Governing Body of the centre at its 19th meeting held on 22/10/2001 had decided to fix the retirement age of its members at 58 years." The Government approved the above decision. There is no need to discriminate Beverages Corporation employees. 3. In 90% of the Government companies, where there is no pension scheme like Government, age of retirement was increased to 58 and in some Government companies retirement age is 60. Hence it cannot be contended that policy of the Government is not to increase the retirement age to 58. This Corporation is one of the few Government companies which earns profits and no grounds are stated in Ext. P3 indiscriminating this corporation from other Government companies on the ground of policy. Petitioners have to be treated at par with other Government employees especially when Board of Directors decided so considering the fact of absence of pension scheme etc. 4. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the employees were allowed to continue up to the age of 58 by various interim orders of this Court. The whole question is whether the Government Order in not approving the resolution of the Beverages Corporation in increasing the retirement age to 58 is arbitrary so as to get interference from this Court as it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is true that this Court by its own cannot direct the Government or Government Corporation to increase the age of superannuation in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled principle that Government employees' age cannot be increased by an order of the Court. It is for the Government to take a policy decision. Here, the entire scenario is different. It is well settled principle that Government employees' age cannot be increased by an order of the Court. It is for the Government to take a policy decision. Here, the entire scenario is different. The respondent Corporation is a profit making Corporation. Board of Directors decided to increase the age of superannuation considering various circumstances especially considering the fact that in majority of the similarly placed public sector undertakings, the age of retirement was adopted as 58 and also considering the fact that even for getting contributory pension under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, the employees have to attain the age of 58 and majority employees of the Corporation, superannuation age is 60 and 58 and the Board decided so, of course, subject to the Government concurrence. The case of the petitioners is that even in sick industries, the age of retirement is 60 in certain cases and 58 in majority cases unless there is a separate beneficiary pension scheme. There is no rhyme and reason for the Government to reject the recommendation of the Board of Directors. In this connection, we refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in British Paints (India) Ltd. vs. Workmen, 1966 (2) SCR 523 : 1966 (1) LLJ 407 : AIR 1966 SC 732 where it was held by the Supreme Court as follows: "But time in our opinion has now come considering the Improvement in the standard of health and increase in longevity in this country during the last fifty years that the age of retirement should be fixed at a higher level, and we consider that generally speaking in the present circumstances fixing the age of retirement at 60 years would be fair and proper, unless there are special circumstances justifying fixation of a lower age of retirement." The above case was a case which was based on the facts of that case where there were three different categories of employees working in the same Corporation. In the above context the Division Bench took the view that regular employees of the said Corporation are also entitled to continue till the age of 58 years. The said case is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case where there is no such issue that there is any difference in the age of retirement with regard to the employees of the Corporation. 20. The said case is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case where there is no such issue that there is any difference in the age of retirement with regard to the employees of the Corporation. 20. In this context, reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in Sureshchandra Singh vs. Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited, (2004) 1 SCC 592 is relevant. In the above case, the Central Government has enhanced the retirement age to 60 years. To the similar effect, the Department of Public Enterprises, Ministry of Industries issued O.M. dated 19.05.1998 making it clear that the said increase in age of retirement would come into effect from the date of the relevant rules and regulations of Public Sector Enterprises concerned are amended by the public sector enterprises concerned. The Board of Directors of Fertiliser Corporation of India Ltd. passed a resolution dated 06.07.1998 deciding not to increase the age from 55 to 60 years which shall involve financial implication. The said decision was challenged. The decision was assailed before the Apex Court on the ground of violation of principle of equality. Rejecting the same the following was laid down by the Apex Court in paragraph 7: "7. The Appellants assail the decision of the Board on the ground of violation of principles of equality. It is alleged that the Board level employees were allowed to continue in service till the age of sixty and the employees like appellants who were below the Board level were forced to retire at the age of fifty-eight. In reply respondents submitted that board level employees could not be equated and compared with the other employees. Whole time directors, who are two in numbers, are directly appointed by the President of India for a fixed term of five years that could be reviewed even earlier; and that other members of the board are government servants and are nominees or representatives from various ministries and are appointed by the President of India for a term of three years. In these circumstances we find that board of directors themselves form a different class and cannot be compared with other employees in regard to conditions of service applicable to them. Allegation of discrimination is also raised by the Appellants vis-a-vis employees of other corporations. Each Public Sector Undertaking is an independent body/entity and is free to have its own service conditions as per law. Allegation of discrimination is also raised by the Appellants vis-a-vis employees of other corporations. Each Public Sector Undertaking is an independent body/entity and is free to have its own service conditions as per law. However, all employees in the FCIL who are working in its various Units and Divisions retire at the age of fifty-eight as per the relevant rules; and that even the future employees will retire at the age of fifty-eight. We also find that since the employees of different corporations could not be treated alike since every corporation will have to take into account its separate circumstances so as to formulate its policy and consequently the argument that there is discrimination of Appellants vis-a-vis employees of other corporation also cannot be accepted. Thus, appellants have failed on alt grounds. The Appeals stand dismissed." Another judgment on which learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance is the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Manoharan vs. Kerala State Warehousing Corporation, (2007) 3 KLT 459 . The learned Single Judge in the said case took the view that decision of the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation to increase the age of retirement from 55 to 58 was a valid decision and decision of the Government not to approve the same was arbitrary. Learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge further noticed that there was no financial burden put on the Government by the said decision. The above judgment was taken in appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench vide its judgment dated 16.08.2010 disapproved the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The said judgment is reported in State of Kerala vs. Adithkutty Amma D. 2010 (4) ILR 572. The following was laid down in paragraph 5: "5. The question to be considered is whether the Government is bound to give a reasoned order, if the recommendation of the Board is rejected. Here, again the respondents have no case that the decision is not one pertaining to the policy of the Corporation with regard to the age of retirement of the employees. We do not think the Government Order needs any separate reasoning since the same is on a policy matter. Here, again the respondents have no case that the decision is not one pertaining to the policy of the Corporation with regard to the age of retirement of the employees. We do not think the Government Order needs any separate reasoning since the same is on a policy matter. Even though Ext.P9 issued by the Government cannot be challenged as arbitrary for want of reasoning, we feel it is a matter which requires detailed consideration of the Government because, the respondents have furnished data which shows the change in the policy decision of the Government itself by increasing and retaining the retirement age of the employees of large number of public sector corporations under the control of the State Government itself at 58 and in some case even 60 years. According to the respondents, out of 113 public sector companies in the State, in as many as 103, retirement age is 58. They also state that three Corporations, K.S.R.T.C., K.S.E.B. and K.W.A stand on a different footing because, retired employees are provided pension at par with the Government service, whereas in the case of Government companies, including the State Warehousing Corporation, pension payable is a small amount. It is also pointed out that in the Central Warehousing Corporation and in very many State Warehousing Corporations discharging same functions, the retirement age of the employees is 58 and in some cases even 60 years. The respondents have relied on Government Orders, G.O. M.S. No. 56/10/ID dated 15.3.2010 and G.O. MS. No. 84/10/TSM dated 16.3.2010 whereunder the age of retirement of the employees of the Food Craft Institute has been increased from 55 to 58. Therefore, according respondents, there is a change in the policy of the Government and so much so, there is every case for considering the increase in the age of retirement of employees of State Warehousing Corporation. What is to be noted from March, 2006 onwards is that employees of the State Warehousing Corporation were also allowed to continue beyond 55 years though under orders of Court and even as of now they are continuing. In other words, the benefit of extended three years of service has been obtained by large number of employees during the course of last four years. In other words, the benefit of extended three years of service has been obtained by large number of employees during the course of last four years. Obviously, if retirement age is now restored to 55 based on our judgment, probably there will be extensive retirements leading to problems for management because, recruitment for replacements takes its own time. We, therefore, feel it is a fit case for the Government to re-consider the matter, particularly in view of the change in the policy of the Government in the decision shown in the case of some other corporations referred above. We, therefore, dispose of the Writ Appeals by vacating the judgment of the learned single Judge and dispose of the Writ Petitions directing the Government to re-consider the issue considering the original resolution passed by the Board of Directors on 15.3.2006 which will be treated as a recommendation waiting for decision of the Government. The Corporation will permit the employees to continue until the Government decides the matter and communicates their decision. The Government is directed to take a decision within two months from receipt of this judgment." The judgment of the learned Single Judge having been set aside, no reliance can be placed on the said judgment. Moreover, judgment of the learned Single Judge was based on the assumption that no financial burden was put on the Government in enhancing age of retirement of employees of the age of the Warehousing Corporation since the Warehousing Corporation was in profit. The said factor is not available in the present case. 21. Another judgment on which reliance has been placed is State of U.P. vs. Dayanand Chakrawarty, (2013) 7 SCC 595 . In the above case, the Apex Court had occasion to consider regulations 3 and 4 of the U.P. Jal Nigam and Engineering Department (Public Health Branch) Regulations, 1978. Regulations 3 and 4 provide for different age of superannuation regarding employees of the Corporation. In paragraph 16, regulations 3 and 4 are mentioned which is quoted below: "16. Retirement on attaining age of superannuation: 3. Age of superannuation of every employee who was employed in the Engineering Department of the Local Self Government under Section 37(1) of the Act, and has been transferred to the Corporation and is employed in the Corporation, will be 60 years. 4. Retirement on attaining age of superannuation: 3. Age of superannuation of every employee who was employed in the Engineering Department of the Local Self Government under Section 37(1) of the Act, and has been transferred to the Corporation and is employed in the Corporation, will be 60 years. 4. The age of superannuation of the employees different from those under Rule 3 above, will be 58 years. But the age of superannuation of the Group 'D' employee who have been employed prior to 5.11.1985, will be 60 years." Challenge was raised by the employees in the Apex Court challenging Regulation 4 which provided age of 58 years whereas retirement age of employees in the Engineering Department of Local Self Government who have been transferred to Corporation was 60 years. The Apex Court in the above background held that there was no intelligible differentia distinguishing the two categories of employees and hence the regulations were unconstitutional and ultra vires. The following was laid down in paragraph 34: "34. Further, as employees appointed from different source, after their appointment were treated alike for the purpose of superannuation under Regulation 31, subsequently solely on the basis of source of recruitment no discrimination can be made and differential treatment would not be permissible in the matter of condition of service, including age of superannuation, in absence of an intelligible differentia distinguishing them from each other. We therefore hold that the High Court by impugned judgment rightly declared Regulations, 2005 unconstitutional and ultra-wires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India." The above case is clearly distinguishable and has no application in the facts of the present case. 22. In Indian Institute of Technology vs. Raja Ram Verma, (2010) 14 SCC 86 the Apex Court has laid down that prescription of age of retirement is a managerial function and the Court can interfere only when it is found that policy of fixation of age of retirement is not based on intelligible differentia. The following was laid down in paragraph 27: "27. It has been held by this Court, more than once, that prescribing the age of retirement is a managerial function and such decisions are taken by the management of the concerned institute on consideration of various aspects. One of the most predominant consideration is the need of the institute, its functional requirements and efficient management of its manpower. It has been held by this Court, more than once, that prescribing the age of retirement is a managerial function and such decisions are taken by the management of the concerned institute on consideration of various aspects. One of the most predominant consideration is the need of the institute, its functional requirements and efficient management of its manpower. These are the areas where the Court should not normally venture and judgment in this area should be best left with the authorities who are in - charge of running or managing such institutes. However, if the Court finds that the policy in fixing the age of retirement was not based on any intelligible criterion or is founded on such a basis which are patently unreasonable and perverse, the Court has a bounden duty to interfere and direct the concerned management to proceed on a reasonable basis." 23. One more submission raised by the leaned Senior Advocate Shri O.V. Radhakrihnan needs to be considered. It is submitted that Employees' Pension Scheme has been made applicable to the Corporation under which superannuation pension is payable after attaining the age of 58 years, hence retirement of employees governed by the 1995 Scheme has to be at the age of 58 years. He submitted that the Statutory Scheme 1995 has to be given effect to and the State Government was obliged to accept the retirement age of the employees of the Corporation at 58 years. 24. In the counter affidavit filed by the Corporation although it has been contended that the Scheme which is applicable to the employees of the Corporation is the Kerala Land Development Corporation Employees Contributory Provident Fund Rules, 1976 as approved by the Government by Order dated 23.06.1979. It is stated that when steps were taken to implement the 1995 Scheme framed under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, the 1952 Act), Corporation has filed W.P. (C) No. 7274 of 2005 which is pending and the Board of Directors of the Corporation has decided to continue the 1995 Scheme pending final disposal of the said Writ Petition. Be that as it may, submission having been raised based on the 1995 Scheme, it is necessary to consider the consequence and implication of the 1995 Scheme on the age of retirement. The 1995 Scheme has been framed under Section 6A of the 1952 Act. Be that as it may, submission having been raised based on the 1995 Scheme, it is necessary to consider the consequence and implication of the 1995 Scheme on the age of retirement. The 1995 Scheme has been framed under Section 6A of the 1952 Act. Section 6A reads as follows:- "6A. Employees' Pension Scheme - (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, frame a scheme to be called the Employees Pension Scheme for the purpose of providing for:- (a) Superannuation pension, retiring pension or permanent total disablement pension to the employees of any establishment or class of establishments to which this Act applies. (b) Widow or widowers pension, children pension or orphan pension payable to the beneficiaries of such employees. Section 6A provides that the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, frame a Scheme to be called the Employees' Pension Scheme for the purpose of providing for superannuation pension, retiring pension or permanent total disablement pension to the employees of any establishments or class or establishment to which this Act applies. As per Section 6A Employees' Pension Scheme has been filed, a copy of which has been brought on record as Ext.P1. Rule 6A and 12 which are relevant are quoted below: "6A Retirement of membership - A member of the Employees' Pension Funds shall continue to be such member till he attains the age of 58 years or he avails the withdrawal benefit to which he is entitled under poara.14 of the Scheme, or dies, or the pension is vested in him in terms of para 12 of the Scheme, whichever is earlier. 12. Monthly Member's Pension - (1) A member shall be entitled to:- (a) Superannuation pension. If he has rendered eligible service of 2 years or more and retire on attaining the age of 58 years. (b) Retirement pension. If he rendered eligible service of 2 years or more and retires or otherwise ceases to be in the employment before attaining the age of 58 years." Rule 12(a) and (b) uses two phrases, i.e., superannuation pension and retirement pension. (b) Retirement pension. If he rendered eligible service of 2 years or more and retires or otherwise ceases to be in the employment before attaining the age of 58 years." Rule 12(a) and (b) uses two phrases, i.e., superannuation pension and retirement pension. A member who has rendered eligible service of 20 years or more and retires before attaining the age of 58 years is entitled to superannuation pension whereas if he has rendered eligible service of 20 years or more and retires or otherwise ceases to be in the employment before attaining the age of 58 years, he is entitled to retirement pension. Thus even according to 1995 Scheme those employees who have completed 20 years and retire at the age of 58 years are clearly eligible for pension under the 1995 Scheme. It has to be noted that the 1995 Scheme is a Scheme framed by the Central Government under Section 6A of the 1952 Act and it is applicable on all establishments throughout the country. It is the common knowledge that retirement age in different establishment and Organization are not uniform and the retirement age varies from 55, 56 68 and 60 years. In the event submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is accepted that the Statutory Scheme 1995 since provides 58 years as superannuation age, there should be retirement of all employees of different Organizations as 58 years, the date of retirement fixed in various Organisations shall became redundant. The purpose of the 1995 Scheme is to extend the benefit of a Scheme framed by the Central Government under the 1952 Act to its members. The benefit under the Scheme is admissible to its members, who retired at 55, 56, 58 and 60 years. The mere fact that superannuation pension is defined in the Act as a pension which is admissible on the attainment of 58 years does not oblige all the employers to fix the age of retirement at 58 years. Superannuation pension has been defined in Section 2(ll) of the Act, which is as follows: "2(ll) Superannuation, in relation to an employee, who is the member of the Pension Scheme means the attainment by the said employee of the age of fifty eight years." The word superannuation pension used in the 1995 Scheme is thus limited for the purpose for which the Scheme extended benefit on the members. There is no contradiction in the 1995 Scheme with regard to the different age of retirement fixed by different Organisations and establishments which are not par with 58 years. The 1995 Scheme has been framed under the 1952 Act for the purpose of providing different kind of pensionary benefits to the beneficiaries. The preamble of the Act provides that "an Act to provide for the institution of Provident Funds, (Pension Funds) and deposit, linked insurance fund for employees in factories and other establishments. Thus the object of the 1952 Act is provided for the aforesaid benefits and the Act did not intend to regulate the age of superannuation of employees working in various establishments. The use of the phrases, superannuation pension and retirement pension under Rule 12 of the 1995 Scheme clearly indicate that the Central Government is well aware that there are instances of retirement in different Organizations which are not at the age of 58 years and are fixed on different ages. We thus conclude that the Statutory Scheme 1995 does not oblige employer of any establishment or Corporation to fix the age of 58 years for its employees for retirement. The object and purpose of the 1995 Scheme is entirely different and does not regulate the age of retirement of its employees. We do not find any substance in the argument of the learned Senior Advocate for the Writ Petitioners. 25. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that there was no illegality in the decision of the State Government refusing to approve the resolution of the Corporation requesting for enhancement of age. The learned Single Judge committed error in allowing W.P. (C) No. 22236 of 2005 relying on the Division Bench judgment in Kavirajan's case (supra) which was clearly distinguishable. The Writ Appeal filed by the State W.A. No. 1056 of 2008 deserves to the allowed. Judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 22236 of 2008 is set aside and the Writ Petition is dismissed. In view of the above, all the other Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions are also dismissed.