( 1 ) THE petitioners are employees of Gadag-Betgeri City Municipal Council (hereinafter referred to as the Council ). In this writ petition they have questioned the action taken by the Council in calling upon them to, retire from service on attaining 55 years of age. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are briefly these: Gadag-Betgeri Municipality was established under the, Bombay Municipal Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Act ). Under S. 46 (g) of the Bombay Act it was open to, the Mumcipal Council constituted under it to make rules regulating the period of services of all officers and servants. In exercise, of the said power gadag-Betgeri City Municipal Council Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rules) were framed. Rule 207 of the Bombay Rules fixed the age of super-annuation of municipal servants in inferior service at 60 yrs and municipal servants other than in inferior service at 55 years. The petitioners are all inferior servants. Under Rule 207 they were liable to be retired from service on attaining 60 years' of age. The Bombay Act was repealed by S. 382 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which came into force on 1-4-1965 S. 382 however provided that the repeal of the Bombay Act would not affect (a) the pretovious operation of the said law or anything duly done or suffered there under; or (b) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the said law; or (c) any penalty, forfeiture or punishtoment incurred in respect of any offence committed against the said law; or (d) any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, forfeiture Or punishment as aforesaid. ( 3 ) THE second proviso to S. 382 provided further that subject to the preceding proviso anything done or any action taken including a rule promulgated under the repealed Act should be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of the Act and shall continue to be in force accordingly unless and until superseded by anything done or any action taken under the corresponding provisions of the Act. In exercise of the power vested under S. 323 of the Act, the State Govt made the karnataka Municipalities (Conditions of Service, of Officers and Servants) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). In exercise of the power vested under S. 323 of the Act, the State Govt made the karnataka Municipalities (Conditions of Service, of Officers and Servants) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). They came into force on 22-5- 1972. Rule 48 of the Rules fixed the age of superannuation of the municipal employees at 55 years, In view of the said rule, the Council called upon the petitioners to retire from service on their completing 55 years of age. " Sri K. S. Savanur, learned Counsel for the petitioners, raised two contotentions in support of the petition; (i) that a right which had accrued to the petitioners to continue in service till they completed 60 years of age under Rule. 207 of the Bombay Rules could not be taken away by any rules framed under S. 323 of the Act; and (ii) that Rule 48 of the Rules was void and ineffective so far as the petitioners were concerned because the said Rule had been framed without giving an opportunity to the petitotioners to show cause as to why the said Rule, should not be framed. " ( 4 ) I do not think there is any substance, in either of the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners. By Rule 207 of the Bombay Rules, the council had fixed the age of superannuation. So far as the petitioners are concerned no action had been taken under that Rule until the Act came into force. It cannot be said that an official acquires a vested right to contotinue in service till he completes the age of retirement prescribed by a rule framed for purposes of regulating his conditions of service, because such a rule is always amenable to modification and alteration. The rule making authority can without the consent of the employee modify it. It cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioners had acquired an indefeatosible right to continue until they completed 60 years of age and that right is protected by the first proviso to Sec. 382 of the Act. The instant case squarely falls within the scope of the second proviso to S. 382. It cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioners had acquired an indefeatosible right to continue until they completed 60 years of age and that right is protected by the first proviso to Sec. 382 of the Act. The instant case squarely falls within the scope of the second proviso to S. 382. Any rule made under any Act which is repealed by S. 382 of the Act is deemed to have been made, under the corresponding provisions of the Act and would contotinue to be in force until and unless it is superseded by any action taken tinder the Act. S. 323 (2) (g) of the Act confers the power on the State Govt to make rules regulating the conditions of service of officers and servants of municipalities. When once the Rules are made under S. 323 (2) (g) protoviding for the conditions of service including the age of superannuation of municipal servants, the Bombay Rules would cease to be operative. Sri Savanur aruged that since the Bombay Rules have not been extopressly repealed by the Rules, it should be held that Rule, 207 of the Bomtobay Rules continue to be in force. It is no doubt true that the Bombay rules have not been expressly repealed by the Rules, But a reading of rule 3 of the Rules would clearly show that the Bombay Rules have been superseded. Rule 3 Off the Rules states that the rules apply to all persons serving in connection with the affairs of the Municipal Council except four categories of persons mentioned therein. The petitioners do not belong to those four categories. It has therefore, to be held that the Bombay Rules have been repealed by necessary implication as Rule 207 of the Bombay rules which provided for the age of superannuation at 60 years in the case, of officials in inferior service cannot stand along with Rule 48 of the Rules which provides that the age of superannuation shall be, 55 years. When an earlier law and a later Aaw cannot stand together and the earlier law is inconsistent with the later law, Courts have Held that the later law shall prevail by virtue of the rule of implied repeal. Heonce, there is no subtostance in the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners. When an earlier law and a later Aaw cannot stand together and the earlier law is inconsistent with the later law, Courts have Held that the later law shall prevail by virtue of the rule of implied repeal. Heonce, there is no subtostance in the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners. The second contention urged on behalf of the, petitioners is that the rules framed without notice to the petitioners are, void as they entail civil consequences. In E. V. Naidu v Union of India, the supreme court has observed that compulsory retirement according to rules does not involve civil consequences and hence it is not necessary to afford govt servant concerned an opportunity to show cause against his compultosory retirement. A similar view has been taken by the, Supreme Court in union of India v. J. N. Sinha. ( 5 ) IN view of the above two decisions Of the Supreme Court, I do not find any merit in the second contention also. No other ground is urged. These, petitions therefore fail and they are dismissed without notice to the resipondents. --- *** --- .