1988 (6) TMI 331 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Notification issued by the State Government substituting new rule 200.
2. Interpretation of rule 200 regarding the age of superannuation.
3. Power of the rule-making authority to make retrospective rules.
4. Whether the new rule 200 annuls the judgment of the High Court.
5. The impact of the new rule 200 on existing employees' rights.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Notification issued by the State Government substituting new rule 200:
The petitioners challenged the Notification issued by the State Government dated 17th June 1988, which substituted new rule 200 for rule 200 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969. The challenge was based on the ground that the State sought to annul the decision of the court reported in 1987 (2) KLT 903 by substituting new rule 200.

2. Interpretation of rule 200 regarding the age of superannuation:
The societies had bye-laws prescribing 60 years as the age of superannuation. Rule 183(2) provided that no employee shall continue in service after attaining 58 years. Rule 200 saved the rights of employees governed by bye-laws providing for a higher age of superannuation. The Full Bench interpreted rule 200 as protecting the right to a higher age of superannuation for employees appointed before 1-1-1974.

3. Power of the rule-making authority to make retrospective rules:
The court held that the rule-making authority has the power to make retrospective rules as conferred by the Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1988, amending Sections 80 and 109. These sections expressly empower making rules retrospectively.

4. Whether the new rule 200 annuls the judgment of the High Court:
The principal contention was that the rule-making authority has no power to annul a judgment of the court. The court clarified that the Legislature can alter the basis on which a judgment is based but cannot annul or reverse a binding judgment. The new rule 200 does not annul the earlier judgment but introduces a new saving clause distinct from the old rule.

5. The impact of the new rule 200 on existing employees' rights:
The new rule 200 expressly declares that the right regarding the age of retirement is not saved. The court found that the new rule applies to all existing employees and does not affect those who had already retired before 17-6-1988. The rule governs future rights in the matter of retirement and does not affect vested rights with retrospective effect.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, holding that rule 200 as substituted by the Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Rules, 1988, is valid and within the powers of the rule-making authority. The new rule does not annul the earlier judgment but introduces a new provision regarding the age of retirement. The petitioners' rights were not determined by the earlier judgment, and no writ was issued against the co-operative societies. The court refused the certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, finding no substantial question of law of general importance.