The central legal point established in the judgment is that the resolution adopted by the Corporation in 1973 entitled its employees to the same benefits as those provided to State Government employees until the Corporation framed its own Service Code and Financial Rules.

1. Both the Letters Patent Appeals are barred by limitation.

2. Considering the averments made in the applications for condonation of delay and having regard to the question of law involved in the appeals, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, we allow the applications for condonation of delay and direct the appeals to be registered.

3. The appellants in both the Letters Patent Appeals and the writ petitioners in the connected writ petitions were the employees of the respondent Corporation and attained the age of 58 years in between 24th March, 2005 and 29th July, 2006.

4. Bihar Service Code, containing rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, governs some of the service conditions of the officers and employees of the State Government. Rule 73 thereof prescribes the age of superannuation of such officers and employees. Until 23rd March, 2005, in terms of Rule 73 of the said Code, the age of superannuation of the officers and employees of the State Government was 58. On 24th March, 2005 the State Government amended Rule 73 of the said Code and thereby enhanced the age of superannuation of its officers and employees to 60 years.

5. The provisions contained in the said Code are not ipso facto applicable to the respondent Corporation and accordingly the provisions contained therein do not ipso facto regulates the conditions of service of the officers and employees of the respondent Corporation. On 21st May, 1973 the respondent Corporation took a resolution, the relevant portion whereof is as follows:

"Resolved that until such time as the Service Code, Financial Rules etc. are framed by the Corporation, provisions made in the Bihar Service Code,...........applicable to the State Government employees be adopted for the employees of the Corporation."

6. In view of the said resolution, the officers and employees of the respondent Corporation upon attaining the age of 58 years superannuated from the services of the respondent Corporation. After the age of superannuation of the officers and employees of the State Government had been enhanced by amending Rule 73 of the said Code, respondent Corporation felt it necessary to ascertain the position in relation to its own officers and employees as regards their age of superannuation. The respondent-Corporation wanted to know from the Government what they should do. The State Government advised the respondent-Corporation to take a decision and thereupon forward the same to the State Government for its approval. The Board of Directors of the Corporation then sat down and felt that having regard to its resolution dated 14th April, 1981 and 13th November, 2001 it is necessary to obtain legal opinion as to whether its resolution dated 21st May, 1973 is still in vogue and proposed to have such legal opinion from the learned Advocate Genera! of the State. It also resolved that if the legal advice of the Advocate General is to the effect that the provisions of the said Code are still applicable, as adapted by it on 21st May, 1973, it would also effect change in the age of superannuation of its officers and employees. The learned Advocate General, on being approached, furnished his opinion and thereby expressed that the resolution adapted by the respondent-Corporation on 21st May, 1973 still holds good for the resolution dated 14th April, 1981 did not rescind the resolution dated 21st May, 1973 and accordingly cancellation of the resolution dated 14th April, 1981 by the subsequent resolution dated 13th November, 2001 did not at all affect the resolution of the respondent-Corporation dated 21st May, 1973. Upon the said opinion being received, the respondent Corporation issued a notification on 29th July, 2006 and thereby extended the age of superannuation of its officers and employees from 58 years to 60 years from the date of the said decision i.e. with effect from 29th July, 2006.

7. In the appeals and the writ petitions, the appellants and the writ pe