S.N. Hussain & Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.

1. Although both the abovementioned letters patent appeals were filed and were admitted on separate dates, but subsequently both of them were made analogous and were heard together because subject matter of dispute was similar and the authorities concerned are also the same.

2. The first case bearing L.P.A. No.332 of 2008 was filed by the State of Bihar and its authorities against order dated 04.07.2007, by which a Bench of this Court allowed C.W.J.C. 11306 of 2006 filed by the sole private respondent of this appeal and quashed memo dated 02.05.2001 of the Director General of Police, holding that the respondent should be considered to have retired on 31st December of the year, in which he completed the age of superannuation, which, in this case, was 2000.

3. The second case bearing L.P.A. No.1328 of 2011 was filed by the sole appellant against the authorities concerned challenging order dated 01.08.2011, by which a Bench of this Court dismissed C.W.J.C. No. 1393 of 2007 filed by him affirming the orders of the authorities superannuating the appellant with effect from 01st July of the year, in which he completed the age of superannuation, which, in this case, was 1996.

4. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar and its authorities, who are appellants in the first case, namely, L.P.A. No. 332 of 2008, stated that according to the Bihar Finance Rules and the Bihar Board Miscellaneous Rules, 1st July of the year, in which an employee is to retire, will be the date of his superannuation. Hence he submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge under challenge in this appeal fixing 31st December of the said year as the date of the employee’s superannuation was not correct. He had also relied upon several case laws.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the sole private respondent in the first L.P.A. vehemently opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants and stated that 31st December of the year, in which the employee was going to superannuate, was the correct date of his superannuation. In this connection, he relied upon two decisions of Division Benches of this Court; one in case of Kashi Nath Thakur vrs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2008(4) P.L.J.R. 241 and the other in case of State of Bihar & Ors. vrs. Bharat Singh @ Bharat Rao, reported in 2002 (1) P.L.J.R. 228.

6. He submitted that the appellants had wrongly relied upon another decision of a Division Bench of this Court in case of the State of Bihar & Ors. vrs. Devendra Kumar Mishra, reported in 2001(1) P.L.J.R. 667, which was per incuriam as it did not consider the earlier decisions of the Division Benches which are mentioned above. If the subsequent Bench was not agreeable to the said two decisions of the Division Benches, the third Division Bench should have sent the matter to a larger Bench. In this connection, he relied upon two decisions of this Court as well as three decisions of the Apex Court in case of Murray & Co. vrs. Ashok Kumar Newatia, reported in 2000(2) P.L.J.R. 65 and in case of Rakesh Sharma vrs. State of Bihar, reported in 1996(2) P.L.J.R. 752 as well as in case of Assistant Collector of Estate Duty, Madras vrs. V. Devaki Ammal, reported in 1995 Supp (2) S.C.C.39, in case of Usha Kumar vrs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1998 (2) S.C.C. 44 and in case of State of A.P. vrs. V.C. Subharayudu & Ors., reported in (1998) 2 S.C.C. 516. He further referred to Rule 1, Chapter V of Patna High Court Rules, 1913, which has the force of law.

7. Learned counsel for the sole appellant in the second case, namely, L.P.A. No. 1328 of 2011 adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the sole private respondent in the first case, namely, L.P.A. No. 332 of 2008.

8. Learned counsel for respondent-State of Bihar and its authorities in the second L.P.A. also adopted the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellants of the first case, namely, L.P.A. No. 332 of 2008.

9. After hearing lea