( 1 ) THE petitioners were Class IV emloyees in the Dist Board, Bijapur established under the Bombay Local Boards Act, 1923. With effect from 1st Novr, 1959, the Dist Board was abolished on coming into force of the karnataka Village Panchavats and Local Boards Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). Under the Rules existing prior to the Act came into force, the petitioners had a rieht to remain in service till they completed 60 years. On 22nd Novr, 1967, the petitioners were absorbed in the taluk Board. Bijapur. Under Rule 15 of the Karnataka Panchayats and taluka Boards Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1962, shortly called 'the Rules', the age of superannuation of the Taluk board employees has been fixed at 55 years and accordingly the petitioners have been asked to retire. The petitioners do not dispute the right of the Govt to frame Rules regulating their conditions of service, but they say that the Rules are not applicable to them since they were framed prior to their absorption. In other wcrds, according to them, only the rules framed after their absorption are applicable to them. ( 2 ) IN support of the contention, the petitioners rely upon Cl (b) of second proviso to sub-sec (1) of S. 242 of the Act. It provides as follows :" (b) Every Officer or servant in the employ of a Dist Board immediately before the date of commencement of this Act shall be absorbed in the service of a Taluk Board or of the Govt, as may be determined by the Govt and shall until other provision is made, receive the salaries and allowances and be subject to the conditions of service to which he was entitled or subject on such date;"the scope of the above provision came for consideration before this court in two decisions: A. G. Hasabhai v. State of Mysore, 1967 (1) Myslj. 118, and C. M. Abdul Rahman v. Slate of Mysore, 1969 (2) Myslj, 224. In both the cases, Somnath Iyer, J, observed that the abolition of Dist Board did not result in the discontinuance of the interruption of the employees' service but he was clothed with the right to be absorbed either in the service of the Taluk Board or of Govt. The question which has been debated before me did not come up for consideration in those cases. The question which has been debated before me did not come up for consideration in those cases. ( 3 ) SEC. 242 (1) (b) confers two-fold rights on the employees of the defunct Dist Board. First part of the section deals with their right to be absorbed either in the Taluk Board or in the Govt service. Second part provides for their conditions of service. To be precise in terms on the second right, I quote the relevant and the last portion of Sec. 242 (1) (b)"until other provision is made, receive the salaries and allowances and be subject to the conditions of service to which he was entitled or subject on such date. "it is seen from the above provisions that the Dist Board employees have a right to be governed by the conditions of service applicable to them on such date until other provision is made in accordance with law the question, therefore, really turns on the scope or the meaning of the words "such date". If "such date" means the date of absorption, then the petitioners should succeed in these petitions as the Rules were made prior to their absorption. If on the other hand, "such date" refers to the date of commencement of the Act, the petitioners have no case before me. They have to retire at 55. "such date"ordinarily refers to the date of the kind earlier referred to, and not any other uncertain or unspecified date. If we peruse S. 242 (1) (b), the intendment appears, to be to preserve the conditions of service of the employees of the Dist Board applicable to them on the date of the commencement of the Act. "such date" in the context should mean, therefore, the date of commencement of the Act and not the date of absorption. ( 4 ) THE view that I take is also supported by the definiton of "taluk board employee' under Rule 2 (iv) of the Rules. It is defined to mean "an officer or servant appointed by the Taluk Board under sub-sec (2) of S. 119 of the Act or absorbed in the service of a Taluk Board under Cl (b) of the second proviso to sub-sec (1) of S. 242 of the Act''. The petitioners, therefore, in any view of the matter, cannot escape the operation of the Rules. The petitioners, therefore, in any view of the matter, cannot escape the operation of the Rules. ( 5 ) IN the result, these petitions fail and are dismissed. In the circumstances, no costs. --- *** --- .