For the admitted position through the Corporation that the Corporation has adopted a resolution to accept the resolution of the State by its Resolution dated 20.2.2016, as it is there remains no doubt that the Corporation has accepted the increase in the age of superannuation of its employees in the line of the decision of the State Government. Therefore, there is no case of involvement of any financial constraint here. Once the Corporation decides to adopt the Resolution of the State involving the age of superannuation of its own employees and further looking to the interim protection granted by this Court on the entertainment of the writ petition through its order dated 19.12.2014, the petitioner gets the benefit of the Resolution of the Corporation. This Court further observes, looking to the date of Resolution of the State, in the event the Corporation had taken decision to adopt the Resolution of the Government in the matter of increase in age of superannuation to 60 years within a reasonable period at least two or three months after the Government decision, the petitioner involved herein having been superannuated on 29.12.2014 would not have been superannuated rather would have been benefited by the decision of the Corporation. Further for the interim protection granted herein, the petitioner should also get the benefit of the Resolution of the Corporation, for which this Court finds, there is no scope for interfering with the judgment of this Court in disposal of W.P.(C) No.24139/2014. 7. At this stage, however taking into consideration the submission of Sri Padhi, learned senior counsel for the
