JUDGMENT : Syam Kumar V.M., J. This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 07.04.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.11049 of 2024. Appellants were the petitioners in the said W.P. (C). 2. The W.P.(C) was filed seeking a declaration that the appellants/petitioners, who were working in Kerala Feeds Ltd., a State Government undertaking, are entitled to continue in service up to 60 years of age in view of the Board Meeting of the Company held on 14.01.2022 which decided to recommend to the Government for approval of enhancement of retirement age of employees from 58 years to 60 years. Issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 1 st respondent State Government to act on Ext.P4 letter forwarding the representation of trade unions and the board resolution requesting such enhancement of retirement age within a specified time and until then to retain the appellants in the service of the 2 nd respondent was also sought in the W.P. (C). 3. The learned Single Judge disposed of the W.P.(C) vide the impugned judgment inter alia holding that the appellants do not have any legal or fundamental right to continue the employment beyond the age of superannuation prescribed under the relevant Service Rules, which is 58 years, unless the Rules are amended and it was also held that since as of now the age of retirement of the appellants is 58 years, their continuation beyond 58 years is totally illegal. The W.P.(C) was disposed of with a direction to the State Government to decide on the relevant representation forwarded within a period of 6 weeks after the matter was examined by the expert committee, which had been constituted by the State Government for the purpose. Aggrieved by the judgment, this Writ Appeal is filed. nd respondent. Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, Government Pleader, was heard on behalf of the State. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is hit by error apparent on the face of the record, in failing to recognize the legal effect and binding nature of the Board resolution of the 2 nd respondent dated 14.01.2022. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is hit by error apparent on the face of the record, in failing to recognize the legal effect and binding nature of the Board resolution of the 2 nd respondent dated 14.01.2022. It is contended that the Board of Directors under clause 30A of the Articles of Association of the 2 nd respondent Company is vested with the power to determine service conditions of employees including the age of superannuation as under Section 179 of the Companies Act, 2013 . The learned Single Judge failed to take note that the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association of the 2 nd respondent do not mandate prior approval of the State Government for effectuating service related decisions taken by the Board. It is contended that the Board of the 2 nd respondent functions as the supreme executive body of the Company and the power to regulate the terms of employment is conferred on it by the Articles. The learned Single Judge, it is submitted, had proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the Government approval is essential for implementing the resolution whereas such approval is neither statutory required nor mandated. Reliance is placed on Section 179 of the Companies Act, 2013 concerning the powers of the Board which stipulates that the Board of Directors of a Company shall be entitled to exercise all such powers and to do all such acts and things as the Company is authorized to exercise and do and sub-section (4) stipulates that nothing in the said section shall be deemed to affect the right of the Company in general meeting to impose restrictions and conditions on the exercise by the Board of any powers specified in the said section. Reliance is placed on the dictum in R.Kavirajan and others v. Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation Ltd. and others [ 2007 (2) KHC 389 ] wherein in a comparable situation that arose with respect to the Kerala State Beverages Corporation, it was held that the employees of the said Corporation are entitled to continue till the age of 58 as decided by the Director Board and the rejection of the request by the Government was held to be a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the said decision of the Division Bench of this Court had been subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court. The learned Senior Counsel thus contends that if at all the Government has any power in the matter, the delay and inaction on the part of the Government amounts to arbitrary and unreasonable indifference and had the effect of depriving the appellants their right of parity in treatment with the employees of similarly placed PSUs violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As regards the revocation of the earlier interim order that had been granted in the W.P.(C), protecting the interests of the appellants, it is submitted that, such sudden revocation, without providing alternate relief or protection, had gravely prejudiced the rights of the appellants, who had continued in service in compliance with the interim order. Violation of the principles of equity, fairness, and a legitimate expectation are also raised by the learned Senior Counsel. It is thus contended that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is fit to be interfered with. 6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader opposed the said submissions and defended the judgment of the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that the Staff Rules and Regulations for the 2 nd respondent M/s.Kerala Feeds Ltd. is approved by the Government, the same being a Government Undertaking. Reliance is also placed on the order dated 17.06.1997 bearing No.GO (MS) No.171/98/AD issued by the Agriculture Department in the said respect. Hence contention that the Government has no role in the matter of service in the 2 nd respondent establishment and that no approval is necessary is devoid of merits. It is reiterated that the Government itself has taken a decision to examine the individual case of the PSU/ Corporations under it for enhancement of retirement age of employees and an expert committee had been constituted. As regards the claim for enhancement of retirement age put forth by the appellants, reliance is placed on the dictum laid down in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and another v. B.D. Singhal and others [ (2021) 17 SCC 435 ] to contend that the enhancement of the age of superannuation is a public function channelised by the provisions of the statute and the service regulations. The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be used to challenge the said action. The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be used to challenge the said action. Similarly, it was held that there cannot be any retrospectivity to the prospectively applicable Government Order and that the representation of the authority cannot give rise to a legitimate expectation since it was a mere recommendation which was subject to the approval of the State Government. Reliance is also placed on the dictum laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Dr.Jyothish Kumar V. , wherein it was held that the benefit of enhancement of retirement age is a policy decision of the Government. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that in the said judgment, after a detailed survey of precedents governing the field, it was inter alia held by the Division Bench as follows: “A scrupulous analysis of the decisions referred above would make it clear that the enhancement of the retirement age is a policy decision of the Government. By invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, as a matter of right an employee cannot seek a direction against the Government to take that policy decision in a particular manner. Similarly, the law which was in force on the date of retirement was applicable to the employees. Further, an employee in service cannot claim promotion as a matter of right.” Relying on Dr.Jyothish Kumar V. (supra), it is submitted that invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, as a matter of right, an employee cannot seek a direction against the Government to take a policy decision in a particular manner, especially in the case of enhancement of retirement age, which is a policy decision of the Government. The learned Government Pleader thus submitted that the Writ Appeal is only to be dismissed. 7. We have heard both sides in detail and have considered the contentions put forth. We find prima facie merit in the contention of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants that being an incorporated entity under the Companies Act, the Board of Directors of the 2 nd respondent is competent to exercise all such powers and to do all such acts and things as the Company is authorized to exercise and do. We find prima facie merit in the contention of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants that being an incorporated entity under the Companies Act, the Board of Directors of the 2 nd respondent is competent to exercise all such powers and to do all such acts and things as the Company is authorized to exercise and do. Respondent No.2 is indeed a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, and as per the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association, the decisions concerning the Company are to be taken by the Director Board. It is the specific contention that for implementing decisions of the Board, apparently no sanction from respondent No.1, State of Kerala, is necessary and hence, Exhibit P3 decision of the Director Board of respondent No.2 to raise the retirement age of employees to 60 years, needed no approval of respondent No.1. It is the specific contention that in spite of the same, Exhibit P4 letter seeking approval had been issued by the Director Board of the 2 nd respondent only by way of an abundant caution. This contention, which is premised on Section 179 of the Companies Act, 2013 , we note, had not engaged the attention of the learned Single Judge while rendering the impugned judgment directing the Government to decide on the representation submitted to it. 8. In view of the above, we hence deem it just, fit and proper to remand the matter back to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration. The Writ Appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The W.P.(C) is remanded back to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration leaving open all questions.