ORDER : K. K. Dube, J. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of the Government retiring him on his attaining the age of 58 years. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the Court of Municipal Magistrate on 16-1-1940. He was confirmed and was promoted as Record Keeper. Whilst in the service of the erstwhile State of Gwalior in about the year 1945 he was appointed as Secretary to the Municipality. The service conditions of the petitioner were then governed by Civil Service Rules Riyasat Gwalior, Samvat 1991. On merger of Gwalior State into the new State of Madhya Bharat, he became the servant of the new State of the Madhya Bharat. The Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act, 1954 came into force from 26-l-1954. The petitioner was now designated as Chief Executive Officer. This was done under section 43 (2) (b) of the above Act. After States Re-organisation in 1956, he continued to be the Chief Executive Officer of Chanderi Municipal Committee in the new State of Madhya Pradesh. The new State of Madhya Pradesh passed the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (Act No 37 of 1961) and the same was brought into force by a general notification made under section 89 (1) of the Act. By this notification, the Chief Executive Officers of the Municipalities became the Chief Municipa1 Officers. The petitioner was thus a Chief Municipal Officer at the relevant time. The petitioner declared his date of birth as 8-12-1916. 3. While he was posted as Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Committee, Shivpur, he was informed under memo No. 4243/18/U/11/71, dated 22-10-1971 that he has been retired from services as he completed the age of 55, years. The petitioner challenged this order by a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution contending that he was entitled to serve upto the age of 60 years. This was Miscellaneous Petition No. 200 of 1971. By an order dated 12-10-1972, the High Court quashed the order of retirement it holding that the petitioner was entitled to continue in service till he attained the age of 60 years. The High Court held that since the State Government had not made any rules or bye-laws regarding the age of retirement, pension, gratuity etc. By an order dated 12-10-1972, the High Court quashed the order of retirement it holding that the petitioner was entitled to continue in service till he attained the age of 60 years. The High Court held that since the State Government had not made any rules or bye-laws regarding the age of retirement, pension, gratuity etc. relating to Chief Municipal Officers in the State under the M. P. Municipalities Act, the service conditions of the petitioner continued to be governed by Civil Services Rules Riyasat Gwalior, Samvat 1991 under which the age of retirement was 60 years. It was held by the High Court that the age of retirement of the petitioner who was a Chief Municipal Officer shall be 60 years. The High Court directed that the petitioner be reinstated as he was entitled to continue in service till he attained the age of 60 years. The petitioner was then reinstated and received all the benefits. He continued in service. 4. By a notification No. 449/18/U/2/73, dated 25-8-1973, the M. P. State Municipal Services (Executive) Rules, 1973 were brought into force. The rules are framed in exercise of powers under section 86 read with section 355 of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961. Thereafter, a notice dated 3-9-1974 was served on the petitioner intimating him that the State Government has decided that all those employees of the Municipal Councils who have attained the age of 58 years must be retired forthwith. The petitioner completed his 58 years of age on 30-6-1974. The petitioner sent his reply to this notice claiming that he was entitled to continue till he attained the age of 60 years and praying that he be continued till that age. But the State Government did not agree and by an order dated 9-10-1974 ordered the petitioner to retire with effect from 8-12-1974. 5. When this petition came to be heard, the petitioner had already attained the age of 60 years. The petitioner contends that the order retiring him at the age of 58 years was invalid and the Court would be competent to strike down such order under these proceedings. The order of the Government, it was urged, was contrary to the decision of this Court in Nurain Prasad Bhamagar v. State of M. P. Misc. Petition No.200 of 1971 decided on 12-10-1972. The order of the Government, it was urged, was contrary to the decision of this Court in Nurain Prasad Bhamagar v. State of M. P. Misc. Petition No.200 of 1971 decided on 12-10-1972. We may now proceed to examine whether the order retiring the petitioner on his attaining the age of 58 years was validly made. 6. The M. P. State Municipal Service (Executive) Rules, 1973 which came into force, with effect from 28-12-1973 deal with the recruitment, qualification, service conditions of the personnel of State Municipal Service (Executive). Rule 29 lays down the age of Superannuation. It reads as under:- "29. Superannuation.-(1) A member of the service shall attain the age of superannuation on the date he completes his 58 years of age and he shall retire on such date: Provided that the State Government may allow a member of the service to continue in employment in the interest of Municipal Council or in public interest. However, no member of service shall continue in service after he attains the age of 60 years." Rule 52 deals with repeal and savings and is as under:- "52. Repeal and savings.-(1) All rules corresponding to these rules in force immediately before the commencement of these rules and applicable to the members of the State Municipal Service to whom these rules apply are hereby repealed : Provided that any order made or action taken under the rules so repealed shall be deemed to have been made or taken under the corresponding provisions of these rules. (2) Nothing in these rules shall operate to deprive any person to if whom these rules apply of any right of appeal which had accrued to him under the rules repealed by sub-rule (1) in respect of any order passed before the commencement of these rules." 7. A contention has been raised that proviso to rule 52 saves the right of the petitioner to continue in service upto the age of 60 years as the High Court's order in the writ petition would be deemed to have been made as an order under the repealed rules and thus saving the right of the petitioner which accrued to him under the old rules, In our opinion, no such construction can be placed on the order of the High Court. What the proviso seeks to save is an order made or action taken under the rules repealed. What the proviso seeks to save is an order made or action taken under the rules repealed. "If under the repealed rules it had been ordered that the petitioner is to continue upto the age of 60 years, probably it could be said with justification that such an order was saved. However, it is clear that there could be no such order in favour of the petitioner as no rules had been framed by the Madhya Bharat Government. The High Court's order in the writ petition clarified the position as regards the rules applicable to the petitioner in absence of any rules framed under the Madhya Bharat or Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act. There is no order as such continuing the petitioner to the age of 60 years under any enactment. The High Court merely said that the rules that would be the Gwalior State Civil Service, Samvat 1991 in absence of service rules made under the Municipalities Act. The High Court in the writ petition indicated the legal position obtaining at the relevant time. But once the M. P. State Municipal Services (Executive) Rules, 1973 were framed, the position changed. It was competent to frame rules regulating the service conditions of the employees as envisaged by the M. P. Municipalities Act. 8. In Janapada Sabha, Chhindwara v. General Provinces Syndicate Ltd Civil Appeal Nos. 125-133 of 1967, decided on 23-2-1970, the Supreme Court pointed out that it was open to the Legislature within certain limits to amend the provisions of an Act retrospectively and to declare what the law shall be deemed to have been but it is not open to the Legislature to say that a judgment of a Court properly constituted and rendered in exercise of powers in a matter brought before it shall be deemed to be ineffective and the interpretation of the law shall be otherwise than as declared by the Court. The judgment was binding between the parties. The Legislature could not say that the declaration of law was either erroneous, invalid or ineffective either as a precedent or between the parties. On the basis of the above decision, it is now urged that the High Court having said that the petitioner is to continue in service till the age of 60 years, even the Service Rules of 1973 will be ineffective to deprive the petitioner of the right granted under the writ petition. On the basis of the above decision, it is now urged that the High Court having said that the petitioner is to continue in service till the age of 60 years, even the Service Rules of 1973 will be ineffective to deprive the petitioner of the right granted under the writ petition. It would be seen that the writ petition namely, Misc. Petition No. 200 of 1971, proceeded on the basis that the petitioner who was recruited in the services of the erstwhile princely State of Gwalior was governed by the Riyasat Gwalior Civil Service Rules, Samvat 1951, His services were then transferred to Municipal Committee and in due course of time, he became the Chief Municipal Officer. The service continued to be governed by Riyasat rules. No rules or bye-laws have been framed regarding the age of retirement, pensions, gratuity etc. relating to Chief Municipal Officers in the State under the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act. Under those circumstances, the High Court observed as under:- "A similar question arose for consideration before this Court in Shriram Verma v. The State of M. P. M. P. No, 86 of 1969, decided on 19-10-1970 It was held in that case that since no rules have been framed to fix the age of retirement of Chief Municipal Officers under the M. P. Municipalities Act and there were also no rules framed under the M. B. Municipalities Act, 1954, regarding the Chief Municipal Officers, the Gwalior Civil Service, Samvat 1991 which applied to the petitioner before the M. B. Municipalities Act came into force continued to remain in force under the subsequent enactments by virtue of saving clauses and would be as such governed the age retirement of the petitioner. In the note below Rule 10 of the said rules, it was proved that an employee who could be appointed or dismissed by the Minister of the Government the age of retirement shall be 60 years since under section 87 (2) of the M. P. Municipalities Act the State Government is the appointing authority in the case of Chief Municipal Officer it was held that the age of retirement of the petitioner who was a Chief Municipal Officer shall be 60 years." (Para. 4). 9. 4). 9. It would be clear from the above decision that since no rules have been framed regarding the retirement and service conditions of the Chief Municipal Officer under the M. P. Municipalities Act, the persons inhering from Madhya Bharat region would be governed by such rules as were applicable to them when they were in service in the integrating States. Here again, since there were no separate rules framed regulating the service conditions of the Municipal Services personnel, the Gwalior State Civil Service Rules applied to the petitioner. The framing of such rules which was long due was eventually done. The impact of the rules undoubtedly stultifies the decision of the High Court but this is another matter and it is wholly permissible for the Legislature to make laws laying down service conditions which would be applicable to the Code of officers to which petitioner belonged. The Government chose to retire the petitioner at the age of 58 years according to rule 29 of these rules. The Government was trying to enforce the law now and the judgment of the High Court did not stand in the way. In fact, the rules have been framed to provide for laws as contemplated by the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961. The judgment of the High Court itself makes this position clear that the Gwalior Riyasat Service Rules were made applicable because no such rules had been framed at that time and in absence of the rules contemplated under the Municipalities Act, the general rules of service as obtaining the new State of Madhya Pradesh did not apply to the petitioner who was an employee of the erstwhile State of Gwalior and Madhya Bharat. We, therefore, see no force in this contention that the rules could not alter the rights enuring to the petitioner under the order of the High Court in Misc. Petition No. 200 of 197l. 10. Lastly, it is contended that under section 115 (7) of the States Re-organisation Act though it was competent for the State of Madhya Pradesh to frame rules regulating the service conditions of the persons inhering from the integrating states, the conditions of service applicable immediately before the appointed day of such persons could not be varid to their disadvantage except with the previous approval of the State Government. No such approval of the Central Government has been taken in the case. No such approval of the Central Government has been taken in the case. The question arises whether the service conditions are being changed to the detriment of the petitioner. 11. It would appear from the facts that the petitioner started his career as a clerk in the Magistrate's Court in 1940. Thereafter, his services were transferred in a Municipality. He then became the Secretary of the Municipality on or about 24-9-1945 and it is after that he became the Chief Municipal Officer. On the formation of the Madhya Pradesh and the merger of Gwalior State, all the services were taken over and the newly formed State passed a Act for unification of the Acts of the Municipalities of Madhya Bharat which was Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1954. The Act came in to force with effect from 26th January 1954. 12. It is on the passing of the Act of 1964 that the petitioner was designated as Chief Executive Officer under the provisions of section 43 (2)(b) of the M. B. Municipalities Act. Before the States Re-organisation he was a Chief Executive Officer in a Municipality in the State of Madhya Bharat governed by the provisions of the M. B. Municipalities Act. The Municipalities Act did not frame any rules regulating the service conditions of the Chief Executive Officer. The Act is similar to the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act and contemplated that the service conditions of the executive officers of the Municipal Committee will be governed by separate rules framed by the Government. This had remained to be done. Since the petitioner became executive officer of the Municipality his service conditions could be regulated by the Government in a manner different from the Civil service conditions applicable to other services. These rules remained to be framed in the integrating States. It cannot now be said that the petitioner would not be amenable to rules framed regulating his service conditions as no rules were framed under the State of Madhya Bharat. The service conditions of the petitioner were clearly subject to such rules whenever they came to be framed. The service conditions are, therefore, not being altered in the case of the petitioner. Since there were no service conditions, these conditions have been brought into force by the Madhya Pradesh State Municipal Service (Executive) Rules. We, therefore, do not think that section 115 (7) of the States Re-organisation Act is attracted. 13. The service conditions are, therefore, not being altered in the case of the petitioner. Since there were no service conditions, these conditions have been brought into force by the Madhya Pradesh State Municipal Service (Executive) Rules. We, therefore, do not think that section 115 (7) of the States Re-organisation Act is attracted. 13. We, therefore, hold that the order of the State Government retiring the petitioner on his attaining the age of 58 years under rule 29 of the Madhya Pradesh State Municipal Service (Executive) Rules, 1973 is valid. The petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs, in the peculiar circumstances of the case. The outstanding amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner.