P.N. Ravindran, J.

A common question arises in these writ appeals and writ petitions. They were therefore heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

2. The appellants and the writ petitioners are employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board constituted under Section 5(1) of the erstwhile Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. While they were in the service of the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board” for short), the Parliament enacted the Electricity Act, 2003, thereby repealing the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998. The Kerala State Electricity Board Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the KSEB” for short) was thereafter incorporated as a company under the Companies Act, 1956, by the Registrar of Companies, Kerala, on and with effect from 14.1.2011. Such incorporation was necessitated on account of the provisions contained in Sections 131, 132 and 133 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

3. In terms of the provisions contained in Sections 131, 132 and 133 of the Electricity Act, 2003 the State Government framed and issued the Kerala Electricity First Transfer Scheme, 2008, (Ext.P4 in W.P(C) No.29438 of 2016), which came into force on 25.9.2008. By that Scheme, all functions, properties and all interests, rights and liabilities of the Board as specified in the Schedule to the Scheme, were vested in the State Government. After the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited (KSEB) was incorporated on 14.1.2011, the State Government framed and issued the Kerala Electricity Second Transfer Scheme (Re-vesting), 2013, which came into force on 31.10.2013. By that Scheme, the functions, properties, interests and all rights and liabilities of the Board were re-vested in the KSEB. Ext.P6 in W.P(C).29438 of 2016 is a true copy thereof. By that scheme, the personnel of the Board were assigned to the service of the KSEB.

4. After the aforesaid exercise was carried out, certain employees of the KSEB moved this court by filing writ petitions wherein they inter alia sought enhancement of the retirement age from 56 years to 58 years. Some among the writ petitioners prayed for fixing their retirement age at 60. Their contention was based on Schedule 1-B of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946. A few among the writ petitions were heard and dismissed by the learned single Judge by Ext.P10 judgment delivered on 16.3.2016, produced and marked in W.P(C). No.29438 of 2016. The writ appeals which arise from the said judgment, the writ petitions which were then pending and the writ petitions which were subsequently filed, are being disposed of by this common judgment. The short question that arises for consideration in these cases is whether the appellants and the petitioners are entitled to seek the intervention of this court to have their age of retirement fixed as 58 years.

5. We heard Sri. P.V. Mohanan, learned counsel who led the arguments for appellants and the writ petitioners as also Sri. K. Sasikumar, Sri. S. Jayakrishnan, Sri. K.R. Avinash, Sri. M. Mohammed Navaz and Sri. Murali Purushothaman appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners in the connected cases and Smt. A.G. Aneetha and Sri. M.K. Thankappan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the KSEB.

6. The main contention raised by learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the writ petitioners is based on the stipulations contained in the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946, more particularly the stipulation in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1-B of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the writ petitioners contend that at the time when Ext.P1 Standing Orders were certified by the Joint Labour Commissioner as per order dated 26.12.1996, he departed from paragraph 3 referred above and acceptin