S.K.Katriar, J.

1. Heard Mr. Vikash Kumar for the appellant, Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava for respondent no.1, and Mrs.. Shail Kumari, SC-15, for respondent no. 2. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by respondent nos. 2 and 3 of C.W.J.C. No. 2299 of 2010*, whereby the writ petition has been allowed, and it has been held that the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) is entitled to the benefit of enhancement of retirement age to 60 years with consequential benefits.

2. A brief statement of facts essential for disposal of the appeal may be indicated. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the present memorandum of appeal. Appellant no.1 is a Cooperative Society registered under the provisions of the Bihar State Co-operative Societies Act, 1935. Respondent No.1 was one of its employees who attained 58 years of age on 31.3.2009.

2.1. The Government of Bihar by its decision dated 24.3.2005, enhanced the age of superannuation of its employees from 58 to 60 years. This led to demands from the various public sector undertakings and various other organizations functioning under the aegis of the Bihar Government for the same benefit. Government of Bihar, in the Cooperative Department, issued letter no. 1305, dated 15.5.2006, to the appellant no.1, to enhance the age of superannuation of its employees to 60 years. The same was considered by its Board of Directors in its meeting held on 2.11.2007, and the following resolution was passed: "6. RWilHH g?mf W\ ^#f^f?T ^ "tffaT 58 m $ *r«TSR 60 ^Psf ^HH wt ^rrn^1% ~5% ^rtor 58 M i\ «raraR 60 M %~H # sFT 3 W^lfen fowl ^ "q^ tfo 1305 f¥ff£F 15.5.06 SRI Ppfa fo^pffa 3TRYT ^ 3}I#37 4 fwFsfcR **t =r The Managing Director did not take the requisite steps to implement the aforesaid resolution leading to C.W.J.C. No. 5387 of 2009, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 22.6.2009, wherein it was held that the appellants are bound to implement the aforesaid resolution dated 2.11,2007, which has attained finality. No appeal was filed against the order in the C.W.J.C. No. 5387" of 2009, and the appellant Instead implemented the resolution of the Board of Directors, vide order dated 30.7.2009, the text of which is reproduced hereinbelow: "^o-g«go^o# wm 5387/09 3 f?m 22.6.2009 ^i Tfpnm z^ ^rrairRT sra ww 3TP&I ~£ 31^IqH "tf P^WlHR ^Jfifajf cfft Tl^IR^fcT ^ 3ng ifrcn 58 ¥^ *&* >{ 60 ^ *t *ntf 11 ^f sn^T c^m " 3 cn^#ni"

2.2. This was followed by C.W.J.C. No. 2299 of 2010*, seeking the benefit of the aforesaid order dated 30.7.2009 of this court, which has been allowed and it has been directed that the writ petitioner (respondent no.1 herein) is entitled to the benefit of retirement on completion of 60 years.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants assails the order of learned Single Judge on the ground that the order dated 30.7.2009 under the signature of respondent no. 2, has been issued with immediate effect. Respondent No.1 had already superannuated on 31.3.2009, and, therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit thereunder. He next submits that respondent no.1 was not vigilant of his rights,, has approached the court late, and is not entitled to the benefit for enhancement of retirement age. He also relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Jai Nsgam and Another V/s. Jaswant Singh and Anr., reported in (2006)11 SCC 464. He also submits that the appellant is not State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. He further submits that the Boards resolutien dated 2.11.2007, needed concurrence of the State Government which has not so far been obtained. Learned counsei for respondent no.1 has supported the order on the writ petition. Learned SC-15 supports the appellants.

4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties