The State Government has the authority to reduce the retirement age of Class IV employees by issuing an executive order, and the amended rule reducing the retirement age can be applied retrospectively.

1. - Against the order dated March 22, 1977, assessed by a learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant, this appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, has been filed by the unsuccessful petitioner.

2. The material facts leading to this appeal may briefly be re-counted. The petitioner-appellant was employed as a Class IV employee in the Municipal Council, Udaipur (respondent No. 1). He joined duties on April 1, 1947. The date of birth of the petitioner-appellant was is July 30, 1917. At the time when he joined the service, he was governed by the Udaipur City Municipal Act, 1945 and the Rules framed by the former Government of Udaipur. The case of the petitioner-appellant is that the age of retirement under the aforesaid Act and the Rules was 60 years. The Rajasthan Municipalities Act (No. XXXVIII of 1959) (for short 'the Act') came into force an October 17, 1959. By virtue of Section 2 of the Act, the Udaipur City Municipal Act, 1945 was repealed. However, in accordance with proviso (b) to Section 2 of the Act, the rules remained is force as the rules made under the repealed Act were deemed to be made under the Act. Section 297 of the Act confers power on the State Government to make rules generally for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act and prescribe forms for any proceeding for which it considers that a form should be provided.

3. Chapter IV of the Act deals with the Rules and bye-laws, Section 88 of the Act provides that the Board has power to make rules. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 297 read with Section 88 of the Act and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, the State Government made the Rajasthan Municipalities (Class IV Service) Rules, 1964 ("the Rules" here in after). These Rules were published in the Rajasthan Gazette, Part IV-C dated April 2, 1964. Rule 2 of the Rules provides that the Rules shall come into force after one month from the date of the publication in the Official Gazette. Thus, they came into force from May 2, 1964.

4. It will be relevant to read material portion of Rule 15 of the Rules:

"15. Regulation of pay, allowances, leave, pensions, gratuity discipline, conduct etc.--Subject to the provisions of Section 310 of the Act and except as provided in these rules the pay, allowance, leave and other conditions of service shall be regulated by rules made under Section 297 of the Act, and pending the issue, of such rules, by the following rules:

(1) The Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (except provisions relating to pension as amended from time to time;

(2) The Rajasthan Travelling Allowance Rules as amended from time to time.

... ... ... ...
On completing of 55 years of age, the petitioner-appellant was sought to be retired from the service of the Board (respondent No. 1) by serving a notice. However, that notice was withdrawn as the matter was referred to the State Government. The Chairman, Municipal Council, Udaipur was informed vide Ex. 3 dated October 16, 1972 that the date of superannuation in the case of Class IV employees of the Municipal Board and the Councils, was 60 years. The petitioner-appellant, therefore, continued in service. By Notification Ex. 5, issued by the State Government, it was made clear that the State Government has decided that the age of retirement of Class IV Employees of the Municipal Boards and Councils has been reduced from 60 to 58 years. Thereafter, in pursuance of the Notification Ex. 6, office order Ex. 4 dated August 31, 1976 was issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Udaipur informing the petitioner-appellant that he has reached the superannuation age of 58 years on July 29, 1975, as his date of birth is July 30, 1917 and as much he should consider himself to be relieved from the afternoon of August 31, 1976.

5. The petitioner-appellant filed a writ petition on October 14, 1976 for quashing the Notification Ex. 5 dated August 20, 19