JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava, J. - The petitioners who were employees of the Zila Parishad have challenged the U.P. Zila Parishads Service (Eighth Amendment) Rules, 1979 which were published in the (J. P. Gazette Extraordinary, dated, March 13, 1980 by which the ago of retirement of the employees of the Zila Parishads was reduced from 60 years to 58 years. 2. The petitioners have prayed that the retirement orders passed in their cases be quashed and have further prayed to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to give effect the impugned termination orders. Under the interim orders granted by this Court, the petitioners were allowed to continue in service. 3. Rule 53 of the Uttar Pradesh Keshettra Samities and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam, 1961 provided that the age of retirement from service will be 60 years beyond which no one shall be retained in the service of the Zila Parishad. By the impugned amendment, the age of retirement has been reduced from 60 years to 58 years. The contention on behalf of the petitioners is that the reduction of age is ultra tires and arbitrary. It was contended that the age cannot be reduced to 58 years at par with the retirement age of Government servants as their pay scales were not made equal to that of the Government servants on the ground that their age of retirement is 60 years. The reduction of age of retirement of employees in order to enable the youngest to get employment is a relevant consideration. In this connection reference may be made to the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Nagara and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, AIR 1985 SC 551 : ......The reports of the various commissions show that the creation of new avenues of employment for the youth is an integral part of any policy governing the fixation of retirement age." 4. For Government servants Rules are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the said Rules can also be amended and that too with retrospective effect provided the same are not arbitrary and unreasonable. In B. Narayan Murthy and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1971 SG 1716. It was observed that the Government is competent to reduce the age of retirement and there is no constitutional infirmity in it. In B. Narayan Murthy and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1971 SG 1716. It was observed that the Government is competent to reduce the age of retirement and there is no constitutional infirmity in it. In K. Nagaraja's case (supra) the challenge was to the reduction of age of retirement from5;58 years to 55 years and it was observed : " ... It is difficult to hold that in reduction the age of retirement from 58 to 55 the State Government or the Legislature acted arbitrarily or irrationally. There are precedents within our country itself for fixing the retirement age at 55 or from reducing it from 58 to 55. Either the one or the other of these two stages is regarded generally as acceptable, depending upon the employment policy of the Government of the day. It is not possible to lay down an inflexible rule that 58 years is reasonable age for retirement and 55 is not." 5. Similarly in Life Insurance Corporation of India and another etc. v. S.S. Srivastava and others, AIR 1987 SC 1527, in which question of age of retirement under Statutory Rules of a Corporate Body Body was in issue, it was observed : ".. .. .. Court can take judicial notice of the different ages of retirement prevailing in the several services in India. In almost all the public sector Corporations Central Services and State services 58 years age is considered to be reasonable age at which officers can be directed to retire from their services. So, the determination of 58 years as the age of superannuation by itself cannot be considered to arbitrary." 6. The rule-making authority in the case of Zila Parishad employees has reduced the age of retirement from 60 to 58 years. The powers to amend the rules is vested in the authority competent to frame the same. It is not the right of an employee to question any amendment on the ground that when he entered the service the condition as it stood then cannot be changed to his detriment, but can be done to his betterment. The validity of the Rules, which are amended from time to time, can be assailed on the ground of their being unreasonable and arbitrary or on the ground that the same have been amended by an authority no competent to frame the rules. The validity of the Rules, which are amended from time to time, can be assailed on the ground of their being unreasonable and arbitrary or on the ground that the same have been amended by an authority no competent to frame the rules. So far as the reduction of retirement age is concerned, it has a definite purpose and the amendment in the Rules cannot be said to be arbitrary and unreasonable. Even if it be accepted that the pay scales of the Zila Parishad were not made equal to the Government servants and one of the consideration was that the age of retirement is different, that will not change the legal and factual position. The pay commission had come to the conclusion after taking into consideration various aspects. It could not be pointed out as to it was the only ground of age that the pay scales of the local bodies and Government servants were not made equal, it being unequal from before. 7. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, we made it clear that the petitioners who have worked after attaining the rage of retirement will not be required to return the salary which has been paid to them and in case salary has not been paid to them for the period they have worked, the opposite parties will pay the same. 8. There will be no order as to costs.