J U D G M E N T

A perceived vacuum due to the alleged absence of rules and regulations governing the service conditions of employees, is the projected cause of the above writ petitions. The absence of a rule for superannuation is the immediate motivation of the petitioners, who are on the verge of retirement. They seek directions commanding the respondent Board to bring in regulations enhancing the age of retirement of the employees of the Board from 56 years to 60 years. The services continued under the erstwhile Board was terminable on superannuation at 56 years. This Court had also granted an interim order that the retirement effected of the petitioners at the age of 56 years would be subject to the result of the writ petition.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in the different writ petitions as also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Board.

4. Admittedly, the Board, by virtue of a process of vesting (S.R.O. 990 of 2008) and re-vesting (S.R.O. 871/2013) of its assets, has been re-organised into a Company, a fully owned Government Company. It is also an admitted fact that there existed a Standing Orders for the Board (Order No.