The timing of approval for the enhancement proposal and the applicability of separate service rules for PSUs were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

S. Muralidhar, C.J. - These appeals by the Industrial Promotion and Investment Corporation Ltd. (IPICOL) are directed against the common order dated 20th February, 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos.24139 of 2014, 20515 of 2014 and 562 of 2015 filed by the Respondent No.1 as well as the subsequent order dated 5th November, 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing RVWPET No.201 of 2020 and orders dated 9th November, 2020 dismissing RVWPET Nos.202 and 203 of 2020.

2. The background facts are that Respondent No.1 (Mr. Bimbadhar Panda) in W.A. No. 696 of 2020 had filed W.P.(C) No.24139 of 2014 in this Court praying that IPICOL should be directed to implement a resolution dated 28th June 2014 of the Finance Department, Government of Odisha as well as the resolution dated 2nd August, 2014 of the Department of Public Enterprises (DPE), Government of Odisha, and thereby be directed to enhance the age of superannuation of Mr. Panda from 58 to 60 years with immediate effect.

3. Mr. Panda was employed in IPICOL since 1st April, 1978. At the relevant time, the age of retirement was 58 years. By the aforesaid resolution dated 28th June 2014 of the Finance Department, Government of Odisha the age of superannuation of the employees of the State Government stood enhanced from 58 to 60 years.

4. Ipicol has its own service rules which are not ipso facto identical to those applicable to the employees of the State Government. The DPE resolution dated 2nd August, 2014 directed inter alia that public sector undertakings (PSUs) of the State of Odisha, which included IPICOL, 'may' enhance the age of superannuation of their employees from 58 to 60 years subject to the following conditions:

"1. The Public Sector Undertaking must justify its need to retain the present experienced manpower for utilization of their services in achievement of the objectives of the Corporation.

2. The entity does not have compelling reasons to reduce cost by downsizing manpower.

3. The PSU must not have defaulted in payment of salary, statutory dues of the employees such as Provident Fund and ESI etc. in past three years.

4. The PSU must not have availed any additional budgetary support during the last three years for payment of salary and other employees dues (excepting the usual level of budgetary support availed by the PSU, if any).

5. The PSU must not have defaulted in payment of loan to any financial institution or State Government. The PSU must be update in payment of guarantee fee/royalty/dividend to the State Government, whichever is applicable.

6. The entity is and will be able to discharge the salary burden out of its own resources and not depend on additional budgetary grant (excepting any usual budgetary allocation).

The P.S.U. shall prepare a detailed proposal which should be approved by the Board of Directors of the PSU concerned.

The proposal approved by Board shall be concurred by the Administrative Department. The Administrative Department shall obtain appropriate Government approval before giving effect to the enhancement proposal."

5. It is, therefore, apparent that by the aforementioned resolution dated 2nd August, 2014 of the DPE there would not be an automatic enhancement of the age of superannuation of the employees of the State PSUs from 58 to 60 years. First, the PSU had to prepare a detailed proposal which had then to be approved by its Board of Directors (BoD). In the next step, the proposal approved by the BoD had to be concurred with by the Administrative Department of the State Government. In the third step, the Administrative Department had to obtain approval of the State Government and thereafter the proposal would be notified for being implemented.

6. A few days before superannuating on 31st December, 2014 Mr. Panda filed the aforementioned writ petition in this Court on 9th December, 2014. On 19th December, 2014 the following order was passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court:

"Heard Miss D. Priyanka, learn