Dipak Misra, J.

1. These four appeals, being interconnected and interlinked, were heard analogously and are being disposed of by a singular order. For the sake of clarity and convenience we shall refer to the facts in C.W.J.C. No. 8670 of 2008.

2. Sans unnecessary details the facts which are imperative to be adumbrated are that the writ petitioner knocked at the doors of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to enhance the age of retirement of the employees of the Bihar State Warehousing Corporation (for short "the Corporation") from 58 years to 60 years. It is needless to emphasize the relief clause included the petitioner. It was asseverated in the petition that a Notification was issued by the State Government on 24.3.2005 whereby the retirement age of the employees of the Bihar Government was enhanced from 58 years to 60 years with immediate effect. Certain Public Sector Undertakings of Bihar passed resolutions in accord with the said Notification enhancing the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years and referred the same to the State Government for approval and, as is demonstrable, the State Government granted approval. It was alleged in the writ petition that the State Government had not acted in a consistent manner inasmuch as it enhanced the age of incumbents of many a Public Undertaking to 60 years, but as far as the respondent-Corporation is concerned, as is evincible, the State Government issued a communication by letter no. 4379 dated 31.10.2008 to the Managing Director of the Corporation conveying its decision to enhance the retiral age of the employees of the Corporation from 58 years to 60 years. On the foundation of the said communication, the Corporation extended the benefit of enhancement of age of retirement with immediate effect. It was asserted in the writ petition that when all the Public Sector Undertakings of the Bihar Government had acted on the basis of the Notification issued by the State Government on 24.3.2005 and they had reaped the benefit, it is inappropriate and inapposite on the part of the Corporation as well as the State Government not to extend the said benefit to the employees of the Corporation. The learned Single Judge accepted the stand put forth by the petitioner and allowed the writ petition and directed that the respondent authority shall confer the benefit of enhancement of age from 58 years to 60 years and pay the consequential benefits as a sequitur.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the State Government has preferred L.P.A. No. 812 of 2009 and the Corporation has preferred L.P.A. No. 1110 of 2009. The Corporation has also preferred L.P.A. No. 1109/2009 and L.P.A. No. 1125/2009 against the orders dated 14.5.2009 and 13.5.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 6060/2009 and CWJC No. 5787/ 2009 respectively following the order dated 12.11.2008 passed in CWJC No. 8670/ 2008 which has given rise to L.P.A. No. 812/2009.

4. Learned counsel for the State while criticizing the order of the learned Single Judge has raised the following submissions:-

(a) The learned Single Judge has fallen into a grave error by expressing an opinion that when all Public Sector Undertakings of the Bihar Government have acted on the basis of the Notification dated 24.3.2005, it was incumbent on the part of the Corporation as well as the State Government to give effect to the same though the Notification does not ipso facto extend the benefits to the employees of the Corporation.

(b) The finding recorded to the effect that the State Government had adopted inconsistent approach is neither legally sound nor correct inasmuch as unless an effective lawful decision is taken to enhance the age, there cannot be a comparison between two different Undertakings and on that foundation the decision of the State Government cannot be foundered.

(c) The procedure for grant of enhancement of age