JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing letter no. 68/09 dated 01.07.2009 as also letter No. 71/09 dated 01.07.2009 whereby petitioners have been ordered to retire from the services of the corporation w.e.f 31.07.2009 on attaining the age of 58 years against the decision of Corporation itself and; further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue in services till they attain the age of 60 years in the tune of policy decision of State Government. 2. Heard Mr. Naresh Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. D.K. Dubey, learned Sr. S.C I for the State and Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the respondents-corporation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Government of Jharkhand, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasa vide its Resolution dated 26.10.2004 was pleased to resolve that in the light of recommendation of Fitment Committee-cum-5th Pay Revision Commission, the pay-scale and other service conditions of the State Government employees would be at par with the Central Government employees and accordingly age of retirement of the State Government employees was enhanced from 58 years to 60 years. Consequent thereupon, the Board of Directors of the respondents-corporation in its 14th meeting held on 24.09.2005 enhanced the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years w.e.f 20.12.2004. Further, the matter went up-to the Hon''ble Apex Court, wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court confirmed the order of enhancement of age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years in S.L.P (C) No. 18316 of 2006. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner after some argument submitted that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision rendered in the case of Balgovind Hazar Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors passed in W.P. (S) No. 3888 of 2014 and if such direction is issued in the case at hand, the grievance of the petitioners shall be redressed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents-Corporation submitted that petitioners retired prior to pronouncement of decision of Hon''ble Apex Court. However, admitted that the respondentCorporation has also adopted the resolution adopted by the State Government in its Board Meeting Resolution dated 24.09.2005 w.e.f 20.12.2004 with regard to enhancement of age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents-Corporation submitted that petitioners retired prior to pronouncement of decision of Hon''ble Apex Court. However, admitted that the respondentCorporation has also adopted the resolution adopted by the State Government in its Board Meeting Resolution dated 24.09.2005 w.e.f 20.12.2004 with regard to enhancement of age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the petitioner retired on 31.07.2009 and the respondent-corporation by now has already settled/paid all the outstanding dues of the employees. Furthermore, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that no specific prayer has been made by the petitioners for arrears of salary, hence on the principle of ''no work no pay'', no relief can be granted to the petitioners. 6. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the pleadings available on record as also the judicial pronouncements; it would be apposite to quash the impugned order as contained in letter no. 68/09 dated 01.07.2009 as also letter No. 71/09 dated 01.07.2009 and accordingly they are quashed and set aside. Since the petitioners have now retired from services no order for continuance in service can be passed by this Court. However, the respondents-authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of order passed by Hon''ble Apex Court, as aforesaid and after scrutiny of relevant documents, if the petitioners'' are found to be paid any legally admissible dues, the same shall paid to the petitioners'' within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of.