Judgment :- 1. The petitioner entered service as a teacher in an Upper Primary School on 17 41951. The said school, 1 am told, is in the Malabar area. Invoking the provisions of Rule 1 in Chapter XXVI of the Kerala Education Rules, 19.59, he was placed in the higher grade of scale of pay with effect from 17 4 1966. There is no controversy on this point. On the basis of certain audit objection Ext. P1 proceedings were communicated by the Assistant Educational Officer to the petitioner. In the said communication, which appears to be a copy of a letter of the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Calicut, it is pointed out that the petitioner's date of birth being 10 21934 he attained 18 years of age only on 10 21952 and that therefore his service from 10 2 1952 alone will count for higher grade. It is further mentioned therein that he has been given the higher grade of scale of pay from 17 41966 counting his period of service from 17 41951, the date on which he entered service as earlier stated. This communication is impugned herein. By the said communication the concerned authority was directed to take necessary steps for revision and fixation of his pay and for getting the excess amount paid to be refunded. , 2. Rule I (2) in Chapter XXVI provides that there shall be two scales of pay for teachers of aided primary schools, as in the case of teachers of Government primary Schools. It further says that all categories of primary school teachers who have completed 15 years of continuous service shall be given the higher scale of pay and others shall be given the lower scale of pay. It becomes material as to from what date the petitioner's service is to be reckoned, namely from 17-4 1951 or from 10 21952. The stand taken in the audit objection which has been communicated to the petitioner is that his service attaining majority alone could be taken into account; This appears to be unsustainable in view of the decision of this court in O.P. Nos. 2167 of 1973 and connected cases. The stand taken in the audit objection which has been communicated to the petitioner is that his service attaining majority alone could be taken into account; This appears to be unsustainable in view of the decision of this court in O.P. Nos. 2167 of 1973 and connected cases. Therein this court pointed out that: "There is do mention there (Rule 1 (2) in Chapter )XVI) or anywhere in the Rule that the 15 years of continuous service will not take in service performed by the petitioners when they were minors." It was further noticed there that in the Malabar area there was no minimum age limit prescribed for appointment as a teacher in so far as anyone who completed 15 years of age were eligible for admission to the Teachers' Training Course Following this decision I have to hold that the reason mentioned in Ext P1 so far as the petitioner is concerned is unsustainable and I hold so. 3. It is contended by the learned Government pleader that sub-rule (2) of Rule I has been amended by adding thereto the following: "Boys service, ie., the service rendered before 18 years of age shall not count for the grant of higher scale of pay." The amendment as aforesaid was brought in by SRO. No. 43/77 published in the Kerala Gazette dated 27th December, 1976. The said amendment has been effected by virtue of the Government's rule making power under S.36 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958. The question then arises as to whether this amendment made in December, 1976, would divest the petitioner of the rights conferred on him on the basis that he completed 15 years of service on 17-4-1966. It should be remembered that the petitioner has been included in the higher grade and higher scale of pay has been sanctioned and paid to him with effect from 17-4-1966 on the basis of then existing rule. There is nothing in the amendment to show that the amendment is retrospective. Therefore the amendment can only be understood as prospective in nature, that is to say, thereafter service rendered before 18 years of age shall not count for the higher grade. At any rate, it is not to be understood as taking away the rights conferred on the petitioner by earlier orders, which as already seen, has placed him in the higher grade with effect from 17-4-1966. At any rate, it is not to be understood as taking away the rights conferred on the petitioner by earlier orders, which as already seen, has placed him in the higher grade with effect from 17-4-1966. In the result Ext. P1 order so far as the petitioner is concerned has to be set aside. I do so. This writ petition is allowed to the above extent. There will be no order as regards costs. Allowed.