Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.

1. Heard Mr. T. Pertin learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. N. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3.

2. The petitioner herein was appointed as a Assistant General Manager, Arunachal Pradesh Industrial Development and Financial Corporation Ltd. (in short APIDFC), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh undertaking on 12.05.1993, by the Managing Director of APIDFC. Thereafter, he was promoted as General Manager in the year 2006 and also appointed as a Managing Director of the Corporation on usual pay and scale as per rules. The appointment of Managing Director is regulated under the relevant provision contained in Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association of APIDFC. The official date of birth of the petitioner is 18.3.1960 and as he has been appointed by the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh providing all the service benefits, hence, according to the petitioner, he is a Govt. servant for all the purpose and in terms of the government notification, AR-68/2010, dated 28.10.2018, the retirement age of every Govt. servant under the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh has been fixed as 60 years but the petitioner has now been suddenly released by the Commissioner, Industries, Govt., of Arunachal Pradesh, by order dated 29.03.2018 from his service w.e.f. 31.03.2018 on attaining the age of superannuation. Challenging the aforesaid order of the Commissioner, the present writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of writ of certiorari and or mandamus for a direction to the authority to consider his date of superannuation as on 31.03.2020, at the age of 60 years in terms of the government notification AR-68/2010, dated 20.10.2017. Further contention that has been raised that he was not served with any prior notice of impending superannuation by the department to prepare his future course and he has been deprived of his legitimate right. Further it contends that the APIDFC is the corporation under the government of Arunachal Pradesh and is controlled and finance by the government. Although corporation was created as a separate entity under the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association and incorporated under the Companies Act, there is no separate service and conduct rules governing the service condition of Director and the Managing Director of the Corporation. The Memorandum and Articles of Association of APIDFC is silent on the same and all the service rules of central government have been adapted by the State of Arunachal Pradesh like CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, CCS (conduct) Rules 1964. According to the petitioner as he, has been appointed as per Article 68 and 69 of the Memorandum of Association, APIDFC, by the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh and therefore, service conditions applicable to the government servants shall be equally applicable to him. The petitioner being appointed as Director is stated to be out of administrative control of the corporation and even if there is any separate service rule in the APIDFC, the same would not cover the petitioner. Referring to office note, dated 22.03.2018, with proposal for extending the benefit of retirement age in terms of the Government Notification No. AR-68/10, dated 20.10.2017, which was placed before the Managing Director, who has made an observation "as per government order"; it has been contended that the effect of aforesaid notification has been approved by the competent authority and therefore retirement age of 60 years will be applicable to the petitioner.

3. Both the State respondents as well as the Managing Direction, APIDFC in their affidavits took similar stand that the petitioner was a employee under the corporation and his salary etc. was given by the company and he was given appointment by the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh in terms of Article 68-69 of t