ORDER A. P. Sen, J. - 1. By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner B. Singh applies for quashing an order, dated 13th December 1967, passed by the Administrator, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, with regard to his retirement from service, and for an appropriate writ or direction in the matter of his superannuation. 2. The facts leading to this application, shortly stated, are these. The petitioner was appointed as a teacher by the Municipal Committee, Raipur, on 2nd December 1940, and has been in Municipal employment since then. He was appointed as Principal of R. D. Tiwari High School, Raipur, on the 17th July 1959. The Municipal Committee, Raipur, had framed a bye-law for regulating the conditions of services of officers and servants of the Committee, to the following effect: "The Fundamental Rules and the Civil Service Regulation as amended from time to time in their application to Madhya Pradesh the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1959 as amended from time to time and the General Book Circular of the Government of Madhya Pradesh as in force for the time being shall apply to the officers and servants of the Municipal Committee in the same way as they apply to Government servants." This Bye-law was made by the Committee, under section 25(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1922, (Act No. II of 1922), and duly confirmed by the State Government, under section 178(3). The bye-law came into effect from 2nd December 1960, the date of its publication in the Madhya Pradesh Raj Patra. In the year 1963, the State Government of Madhya Pradesh raised the age of superannuation of Government servants from 55 to 58 years. This decision was conveyed in the Memorandum No. 433-258-i (iii)/63 of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, General Administration Department, dated 28th February 1963, and the increase in age of superannuation came into effect from 1st March 1963. Following this action of the State Government, the then Committee passed a Resolution No.4, dated 10th September 1963, raising the age of retirement of its employees from 55 to 58 years in terms of the aforesaid Memorandum, as from 1st April 1963. The parties are not agreed as to the effect of this resolution. Following this action of the State Government, the then Committee passed a Resolution No.4, dated 10th September 1963, raising the age of retirement of its employees from 55 to 58 years in terms of the aforesaid Memorandum, as from 1st April 1963. The parties are not agreed as to the effect of this resolution. The Municipal Committee, Raipur, came to be constituted into a Municipal Corporation, under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, (Act No 23 of 1956) w.e.f. 26th August 1967. On 10th October 1967, the State Government promulgated an Ordinance, namely, the Madhya Pradesh Shashkiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki Ayu Adhyadesh, 1967, reducing the age of superannuation of Government servants from 58 to 55 years. This Ordinance has now been replaced by the Madhya Pradesh Shashkiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki Ayu) Adhiniyam 1967, (Act No. 25 of 1967). In accordance therewith, the Secretary of the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, addressed a D. O. letter dated 27th November 1967 to the petitioner stating that the Corporation had decided that the age of compulsory retirement of the Municipal Corporation employees, other than those belonging to Class IV service, shall be 55 years w.e.f. 15th December 1967, and since the petitioner had already completed that age, he should apply for leave preparatory to retirement. In answer, the petitioner sent a reply to the Administrator, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, stating that the action proposed to be taken was not in accordance with law. On 13th December 1967, the Administrator passed the impugned order retiring the petitioner from the municipal service. Thereafter, the petitioner drew the attention of the Administrator to the invalidity of the order of retirement, but the latter declined to review his order. 3. Shri H. L. Khaskalam, learned counsel for the petitioner, assails the validity of the order of retirement on the ground that the then Municipal Committee having raised the age of superannuation of its servants from 55 to 58 years by Resolution No 4, dated 10th September 1963, the Administrator of the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, had no power, authority or Jurisdiction to vary the age of superannuation and, therefore, the impugned order of retirement is invalid. We are not impressed with this submission for reasons which we shall presently state. 4. We are not impressed with this submission for reasons which we shall presently state. 4. Under section 25(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1922, the conditions of service of officers and servants of a Municipality were regulated by bye-laws framed by the Municipal Committee. In accordance therewith, the Municipal Committee, Raipur, had framed a bye-law laying down that the Fundamental Rules, General Book Circulars and the Civil Services Regulations made from time to time shall apply mutatis mutandis to the officers and servants of the Committee as they apply to the Government servants of the State. That bye-law was in force on 1st February 1962, when the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1922, was repealed by the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1961, (Act No. 37 of 1961). 5. It would thus appear that the bye-law framed by the Municipal Committee, Raipur, on the 11th November 1960 regulating the conditions of service of officers and servants of the Committee remained in force despite the repeal of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1922, until it was altered in the manner required. The Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, directs by section 95 that these matters shall be regulated by rules framed by the State Government. Admittedly, no rules have been framed by the Government under this section. That is because the language of that section does not make it obligatory for the State Government to make any such rules. Now, when the powers under section 95 are not exercised by the Government and no rules regulating the service conditions for the municipal employees are framed, their conditions of service were still governed by the bye-law made under the repealed Act, which continued to remain in force. This is by reason of section 2(2) (iv) (b), whereby the conditions of service, existing immediately before the commencement of the new Act shall be deemed to be their conditions of service under the new Act, until altered in accordance with the provisions of that Act or the rules made thereunder. Furthermore, section 2(2) (i) provides that all bye-laws made under the repealed Act shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the new Act, be deemed to have been made under that Act. Furthermore, section 2(2) (i) provides that all bye-laws made under the repealed Act shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the new Act, be deemed to have been made under that Act. In that context, Explanation I to that section, declares, for removal of doubts, that any bye-law made or any thing done under the repealed Act shall not be deemed to be inconsistent with the provisions of the new Act merely on the ground that the procedure followed in making such bye-laws or doing such things was different from that prescribed under the new Act. The result is that the bye-law framed by the Municipal Committee, Raipur, continued to govern the officers and servants of the Municipal Committee in the same way until it was altered "in the manner prescribed by this new Act", by virtue of section 2(2) (iv) (b). The manner in which it could be altered is dearly provided for by section 95 which contemplated the making of rules by the State Government on the subject. The Municipal Committee had no authority to raise the age of superannuation and consequently Resolution No.4, dated 10th September 1963, was ultra vires the Committee, and, therefore, legally ineffective to bring about a change in the age of superannuation of its servants. The position then is, that so long as the bye-law notified on 2nd December 1960 stands, the age of retirement for municipal employees of the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, is 55. On this view, the order of retirement passed by the Administrator, Municipal Committee, Raipur, was perfectly valid. 6. After the conversion of the Raipur Municipality into a "Municipal Corporation", the municipality ceased to be governed by the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961. This was by reason of section 2 of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. With the formation of a Municipal Corporation, all municipal officers and servants in the employment of the municipality were deemed, by reason of section 442(2), to have become officers and servants employed by the Corporation as if they had been appointed under section 58. By virtue of section 442(3), the existing conditions of service were deemed to have become their conditions of service under the new set up, notwithstanding any thing contained in the 1956 Act or any rules or bye-laws made thereunder. By virtue of section 442(3), the existing conditions of service were deemed to have become their conditions of service under the new set up, notwithstanding any thing contained in the 1956 Act or any rules or bye-laws made thereunder. The necessity for a provision like section 442 (3) becomes obvious because under the 1956 Act, the conditions of service were again relegated to bye-laws, by reason of section 427 (1-c) (b). This provision, however, preserved the bye-law framed by the erstwhile Municipal Committee, Raipur, fixing the age of superannuation of municipal servants at 55 years and it continued to remain in force as it was never altered, in the manner required by law. 7. After the formation of a Municipal Corporation, the age of retirement could only be altered by the Corporation by framing a new bye-law under section 427(1-c) (b). The parties admit that no such bye-law has been made. The result is that the existing bye-law still continues to govern the age of superannuation of municipal servants. If that is so, then the bye-law in terms provides that the conditions of service as applicable to Government servants, and, as for the time being in force, shall apply mutatis mutandis to the officers and servants of the Corporation. In that event the amendment of F. R. 56 by the M. P. Shasakiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki Ayu) Adhyadesh, 1967, and the Adhiniyam which replaced it, reducing the age of retirement of Government servants to 55, would apply to the municipal servants. On the other hand, if the bye-law does not make the subsequent amendments in the Fundamental Rules automatically applicable to them, then the petitioner's age of retirement was never enhanced to 58 years. In either view, the order of retirement cannot be called in question. 8. The authorities relied upon by the learned Counsel are clearly distinguishable. In Chandra Shekhar Khemparis Vs. Shri L. P. Tiwari, Administrator, Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur 1968 JLJ 833 , the Jabalpur Municipal Corporation had framed a bye-law under section 427, raising the age of retirement of its servants to 58 years. That bye-law not having been replaced by a new bye law, this Court held that the communication addressed by the Secretary of the Municipal Corporation seeking to retire the petitioner, under the instructions of the Finance Department of the Slate Government, was wholly unwarranted. In Bhagtiwat Prasad Chobe Vs. That bye-law not having been replaced by a new bye law, this Court held that the communication addressed by the Secretary of the Municipal Corporation seeking to retire the petitioner, under the instructions of the Finance Department of the Slate Government, was wholly unwarranted. In Bhagtiwat Prasad Chobe Vs. The State of M.P. 1968 JLJ 867 , this Court declared that a resolution passed by the Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur was legally ineffective to raise the age of retirement from 55 to 58 years of Municipal servants. In Bhagwandas Vaishnav Vs. Municipal Council, Chhindwara M. P. No. 15 of 1968, dt. 28.2.1968, this Court was concerned with a case where no bye-laws regarding retirement were framed under section 178 of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1922, and in that context, held that the matter falls to be governed by the law of master and servant. 9. These authorities instead of supporting the petitioner, are really against him. In Bhagawat Prasad Choube (supra), it was observed:- "Now, section 427 gives to the Corporation the power to make bye-laws. Sub-clause (b) of clause (1-c) of section 427 confers on the Corporation the power to make bye-laws in the matter of the conditions of service of Corporation officers or servants; sub-clause (h) of that clause gives to the Corporation the power to frame bye-laws with regard to the period of service of Corporation officers and servants. Thus, it is abundantly plain that the Corporation has the power to frame bye-laws fixing the age of retirement of its officers and servants. In fact, as has been provided under section 58(1), it is only by framing bye-laws under section 427 that the Corporation can regulate the amount of pension and gratuities and thus fix the age of retirement." It was accordingly, held that the Standing Committee had no power to raise the age of retirement. 10. By parity of reasoning, it must follow in this case that the Municipal Council, Raipur, had no authority to increase the retirement age of its servants to 58 by passing a resolution because at the time when the resolution was passed, the power to alter the age of superannuation could only be exercised by the State Government, by making an appropriate rule in that behalf, under section 95 of the 1961 Act. The formation of a Corporation does not alter the position because, as we have already stated, the Corporation has not framed a bye-law under section 427 (1-c) (b). 11. The result is that the petition fails and is dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs. The outstanding security amount remaining, shall be refunded to the petitioner.