JUDGMENT

KULDIP SINGH, J.:—The question for our consideration is whether the age of superannuation of the teachers, working in the municipal schools in Vidarbha Division of Maharashtra is 60 or 58 years.

2. The teachers working in the High Schools run by Municipal Council, Hinganghat filed a petition before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court claiming their age of superannuation to be 60 years and praying that the bye-law framed by the Municipal Council providing the said age to be 58 years be quashed. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the age of retirement of the teachers fixed under the bye-laws of the Municipal Council Hinganghat was valid and in accordance with law. This appeal by way of special leave is by the teachers against the judgment of the High Court.

3. The appellants joined service as teachers prior to November 1, 1956 in the High Schools run by the Municipal Council Hinganghat district Wardha. The said district was part. of the then State of Madhya Pradesh. The conditions of service of the appellants were governed by the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Secondary Education Act, 1951 (the Act). The State Government framed Regulations (Regulations) under Section 20 of the Act which came into force on February 18, 1953. Chapter XII of the Regulations was under the heading "the School Code". Clause II of Chapter XI of the Regulations stated that "every recognised school shall comply with the provisions of the School Code as laid down in Chapter XII of the Regulations ........" Chapters XI and XII of the Regulations being statutory it was mandatory for the recognised schools to comply with the provisions of "the School Code" as provided under Chapter XII of the Regulations. Clause 7 of Chapter XII to the relevant extent reads as under:

"(1)....On confirmation, the head-master or the teacher, as the case may be, shall sign a contract of service in the form prescribed in Form III or IV appended to this Code, as the case may be, as soon as practicable... ......."

4. The Regulations prescribed Form IV being an agreement between the management and the teacher. Clause 9 in Form IV reads as under:

"The party of the first part (the teacher) shall retire from service on attaining the age of 60 years and the exact time for such retirement shall be the last day of the academic year in which he attains that age."

5. It is thus clear from the above provisions of the Act and the Regulations that the retirement age of the appellants was 60 years. It was admitted case of the parties before the High Court and it was not disputed before us that under the Act and the Regulations the age of superannuation of the appellants was 60 years.

6. Eight districts of Madhya Pradesh including Wardha ceased to be part of the State of Madhya Pradesh with effect from November 1, 1956 and were made part of the State of Bombay and from May 1, 1960 the State of Maharashtra. The area comprising of these eight districts is called Vidarbha Division of Maharashtra. The provisions of the Act and the Regulations continued to apply to the appellants by operation of law till January 1, 1966 when the Maharashtra Secondary Education Boards Act, 1965 (Maharashtra Act) came into force. Before the enforcement of the Maharashtra Act the Maharashtra Government framed the Secondary Schools Code (the Code) which came into force with effect from 1963. It is not disputed that the Municipal Council Hinganghat is getting grant-in-aid from the Government for running the schools which are recognised under the Code. Rule 82(l) of the Code provides that a teacher shall compulsorily retire on the date on which he attains the age of 58 years. Exception to rule 82(l) reads as under:

"Exception : The age of compulsory retirement of a permanent teacher or headmaster in service in a recognised non-Government secondary school in Vidarbha, on 31st December 1965 shall be 60 years."

7. It is not disputed that the appellants were made permanent prior to December 31, 19