JUDGMENT The petitioners are the two Teachers' Organisations registered under the Societies Registration Act and the Trade Unions Act, respectively. The objects of the Organisations are, inter alia, to look after the welfare of teachers and advance their cause and plead the cases of the teachers before various authorities or bodies. The case of the petitioners is that under the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 the Standing Finance Committee of the Corporation in consultation with the Calcutta Municipal Service Commission and confirmed by the Corporation at its meeting and finally sanctioned by the State Government by order dated 10th August, 1957 a set of service regulation was framed without touching Part II of the Service Regulation relating to the Age of Retirement Subsequently Reg. 72 was revised by the Standing Finance Committee in consultation with the Calcutta Municipal Service Commission and got the sanction of the State Government Order dated 6th September, 1957 to the effect that an employee should retire on attaining the age of 60 years and no employee would continue in service beyond that age. But by Circular No. 37 of 1971-72 the said Reg. 72 was amended to the effect that the teachers of Corporation Primary Schools may be retained in service upto the age of 65 years by an extension for a period of not more than one year at a time on condition. This amendment was effective with retrospective effect from 15th September, 1970. The aforesaid amended Regulations 72 was enjoyed by the Corporation Primary Teachers relating to superannuation till 1990. 2. By Finance Department's Resolution No. 805 F dated 30th January, 1987 the Government constituted a Pay Commission to examine the present structure of pay and conditions of service, inter alia, of Municipal Corporations and Municipalities. The Pay Commission submitted its report to the Government and after considering the recommendation of the Commission it set out its decision in Memorandum No. 432-F dated 12th January, 1990 only in respect of employees under the Rule making control of the State Government. The Governor after consideration of the recommendation was pleased to decide that the scales of pay and other conditions of service of employees of Calcutta Municipal Corporation shall be as set out in the Resolution dated 22nd March. 1990. The Governor after consideration of the recommendation was pleased to decide that the scales of pay and other conditions of service of employees of Calcutta Municipal Corporation shall be as set out in the Resolution dated 22nd March. 1990. It is contended that the said Resolution of 22nd March, 1990 does nowhere say that if an employee opted for the revised scale of pay or other conditions as contained in the said Resolution the Primary Teachers of the Corporation shall have to forego their right of continuance in service till the age of 65 years. By a Circular No. VII/46 of 1989-90 the Respondent No 5 informed the employees that the revised scales of pay shall be notionally effective from 1st January, 1986 and the Circular also stipulated option to come under the revised scale of pay which is to be exercised within 90 days from the date of the issue of the Circular on 20th March, 1990. It is further contended by the petitioners that nowhere in the Circular there is any provision that those who will opt far revised scale of pay shall have to abandon his right to continue till the age of 65. By an Order No. 9 of 1990-91 issued by the Respondent No. 5 it was made known that the teachers of Primary Schools of Calcutta Municipal Corporation might be allowed to draw Day in the revised scale on provisional basis subject to adjustment on finanlisation by the State Government as to retention beyond 60 years of age. On 16th April, 1990 the Mayor of Calcutta Municipal Corporation gave a note to the effect that a decision had been taken that the teachers of Calcutta Municipal Corporation's Primary Schools might be allowed to draw revised scale on provisional basis subject to the adjustment of excess or short draw after finalisation by the State Government of their retention in service beyond 60 years & finally by Circular No.2 of 1990-91 issued by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner the age of superannuation of the teaching staff of the Primary Schools of the Corporation who elect to come over the revised scale of pay shall be fixed at 60 and the prevailing practice of granting extension beyond 60 years would no longer be enjoyed. Hence the writ petition for a declaration restraining the Corporation from imposing the Circular No.2 of 1990-91 modifying or altering the age of superannuation as fixed by Reg. 72 and to quash the same. 3. A further Affidavit by the petitioners was filed, inter alia, incorporating the recommendation of the Mayor-in-Council regarding the proposed amendment of the age of retirement of the Primary Schools Teachers of the Corporation at the age of 60 years With no extension and also annexing the Resolution of 22nd March, 1990 as well as an important Resolution of the State of West Bengal dated 27th July, 1990 which shall be considered in due course and on which depends the success of this Writ petition. 4. As the case of the petitioners was mostly based on legal aspects and the various circulars issued by the Corporation and the Resolution of the State Government, the respondents did not pray for filing of Affidavit-in-Opposition but contested the matter vehemently with extensive arguments and submitted written arguments as well. 5. Mr. Arun Prokash Chatterjee, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, submitted that as early as in 1971 Regulation 72 of the Service Regulations was amended to provide the Primary Schools Teachers of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation to continue in service after the age of superannuation at 60 till the age of 65 years provided they are physically fit and mentally alert. In 1976 by amendment of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 inserting section 85A(c) the authority to fix the age of superannuation was for the first time vested to the State Government and the said amended section 85A(c) was incorporated under section 23 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. He submitted that the are as specified in Regulation 72 can be touched by the State Government only by a Notification or by Rule. It is contended that the age of superannuation is an important condition of service and can be settled only by a Rule. Any Rule determining condition of service bas to be in accordance With section 600 of the C.M.C Act of 1980 and must be published in the Gazette in draft form and the said draft is to be placed on the table of the Legislative Assembly. Any Rule determining condition of service bas to be in accordance With section 600 of the C.M.C Act of 1980 and must be published in the Gazette in draft form and the said draft is to be placed on the table of the Legislative Assembly. Heavily relying upon the decision in the case of (1) Slate of Assam v. Bharat Kala Bhandar Ltd. reported in AIR 1967 SC 1766 wherein the Supreme Court according to Mr. Chatterjee held that the exercise of a power is to unsettled the settled relations between the employer & the employees & which may be existing for a long time there must be proper consultation with the persons effected. In the submission of Mr. Chatterjee the procedure laid down in the above decision should be procedure more so when reduction in the age of retirement is effected causing prejudice to a large number of employees. The id. Advocate further contended that even assuming that the change of age of retirement could he effected by just a Notification instead of a Rule, such Notification could be only a Gazetted Notification as required under sec. 2(58) of the Act of 1980; even the resolution cannot have any effect unless it is gazetted and the proviso of section 603 of the Act of 1980 would not be applicable to any Rule or Notification by the State Government. Mr Chatterjee further submitted that the Resolution even when gazetted would not have any retrospective effect because the Resolution itself does not provide any retrospective effect. To support his contention he cited the decision in the case of (2) Ex-N. C. Major Singhal v. Director General, Armed Forces Medical Service and Anr. reported in AIR 1972 SC 628 followed by (3) State of Gujarat v. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Sony and Anr. reported in AIR 1984 SC 161 ; (4) Ex-Capt. K. C. Arora and Anr. v. Stale of Haryana and Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 1858 ; and (5) T. R. Kapur and Ors. v. State of Haryana and On reported in AIR 1987 SC 415 . reported in AIR 1984 SC 161 ; (4) Ex-Capt. K. C. Arora and Anr. v. Stale of Haryana and Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 1858 ; and (5) T. R. Kapur and Ors. v. State of Haryana and On reported in AIR 1987 SC 415 . He concluded his argument by submitting that by Resolution dated 27th July, 1990 the Corporation Primary Teachers were once again asked to give option for the revised scale of pay under taking to accept the reduction in the age of superannuation and such option as required for the second time is totally illegal. It was specified in para 4 of the Resolution dated 22nd March, 1990 that option once exercised was final He further contended that the proviso to Regulation 72 as inserted by amendment in 1969 declaring the Primary Teachers' age of continuance in service till 65 years could not be legally amended or deleted by Resolution of 27th July, 1990. The said amended Regulation continues to be valid and the Primary Teachers of the Corporation cannot be asked to go out of employment after completing 60 years of age provided they are physically fit and mentally alert. 6 Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State of West Bengal, submitted that the only question for consideration in the instant writ petition is the legality and validity of the fixation of the age of superannuation of the primary teachers of the schools of Calcutta Municipal Corporation. He referred to the Circular No. 37 of 1971-72 and added that the Regulations were framed under section 85 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 and such Regulations were required to be made either by Notification or by publication in the Gazette and the existing Regulations were made under the Act of 1951 without any Notification or publication in the Gazette. Though the Act of 1951 was repealed by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 inspite of such repeal the Regulations framed under the Act of 1951 continued to remain in force in view of the provisions of section 25 of the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899 by which a Rule or Bye-law made or issued under the repealed enactment shall, as far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions re-enacted continue in force and be deemed to have been made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted, unless and until it is superseded by any Rule, Bye-law, etc. Under the Bengal General Clauses Act rule means a rule made in exercise of a power conferred by an enactment, and includes a Regulation made as a rule under any enactment. In this connection he referred to section 20 of the C. M. C. Act of 1980 where the service conditions of the employees are required to be determined by Regulations. He pointed out that the proviso to section 603 completely excluded regulations made under Chapter III of the Act of 1980. Section 23 of the Act of 1980 deals with the age of superannuation of officers and employees of the Corporation and enable the State Government to determine the age of superannuation and further provides that no such officer or employee shall after retirement, be employed in any post without the prior sanction of the State Government. It is further contended that section 23 does not provide that the Government is to make the determination either by Notification or by Rules or by Regulations. According to Mr. Mukherjee under section 4 read with section 2(58) of the Act of 1980 the State Government is to constitute the Corporation by Notification published in the Official Gazette but section 23 does not require a Notification and a consequent publication in the Official Gazette. The learned Advocate makes it clear that in matters of making Rules by the State Government and framing Regulations other than Service Regulation, the Act of 1980 requires previous publication. It is contended by him that section 20 of the C. M. C. Act exempt the requirement of prior publication in the Official Gazette in view of section 603. In this connection Mr. It is contended by him that section 20 of the C. M. C. Act exempt the requirement of prior publication in the Official Gazette in view of section 603. In this connection Mr. Mukherjee pointed out that one of the common Rules for interpretation of the Statute is that even a Statute confers a special power and also prescribes the mode for its exercise, the power is to be exercised in that prescribed mode and in no other mode. One thing is made crystal clear that the Resolution dated 27th July, 1990 that was forwarded by the State Government to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation and all concerned and to be published in an Extra-Ordinary issue of the Calcutta Gazette is merely an executive decision and not a statutory requirement. Had it been a statutory requirement the Resolution would not have been operated until the publication in the Official Gazette as the constitution of the Corporation itself would not be effective unless section 4 is complied by Notification in the Official Gazette. He contradicts the submissions of the petitioners that unless the requirement of section 23 is fulfilled and the Resolution is published in the Official Gazette it could not be effective. With regard to the Resolution dated 22nd March. 1990 it is said that it is an Administrative Resolution and was not published in the Official Gazette. To the argument of the petitioners that Resolution dated 27th July, 1990 violates the principle of natural justice, it is submitted that it is the settled principle of law that in the matter of making Service-Rule or Service Regulation by the Stale or its Agency (such as the Corporation) the principles of natural justice have no application A Rule under Article 309 of the Constitution or an Administrative Rule in absence of any Rule under Article 309 can be validly made without providing the employees with any opportunity of being heard. He pointedly submitted that by almost an identical Resolution the scale of pay and age of superannuation of the teachers of the Secondary Non-Government Schools were sought to be revised by the State Government in the case of West Bengal Headmasters' Association and at that time it was not even suggested that such revision cannot be made without publication in the Official Gazette. He concluded by submitting that the power of the State Government to determine the age of superannuation and "the fact that the State Government has determined the age of superannuation of the Primary Schools Teachers of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation are not in dispute. The only argument advanced is that it has not been determined as required by the provisions of the C. M. C. Act of 1980 and such submission does not appear tenable. 7. Mr. Mihir Kumar Roy, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation, submitted that in view of the Resolution dated 27th July, 1990 issued by the Government determining the age of superannuation of the C. M. C. Primary Teachers, the question of Reg. 72 of the Service Regulations is no more applicable because section 23 of the C. M. C. Act, 1980 overrides all provisions which are inconsistent thereof. He submitted that the Circular No.6 of 1990-91 dated 1st August, 1990 was issued in conformity with the contents of the Resolution dated 27th July, 1990 and it was decided by the Mayor that the teachers of the Corporation shall have to exercise option for revised scale of pay and the age of superannuation of such teachers shall be fixed at 60 years and their pensionary benefits shall be guided by the existing orders as may be revised from time to time. The period under which the option was to be exercised was 25th August, 1990. Thereafter Circular No. VII/17 of 1990-91 was issued and thereafter on 30th August, 1990 the Calcutta Municipal Corporation at its meeting accepted the recommendation of the Mayor-in-Council and amended Regulation 72 in respect of the age of superannuation. It is further contended that the Han'ble Mr. Justice Susanta Chatterji passed an order inter alia, giving liberty to Respondent No.1 to amend Regulation 72. It was further contended by Mr. Roy that the Resolution was in conformity with the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission and in accordance with section 23 of the Act of 1980. He also said that the action taken by the Corporation and the State Government is in accordance with Article 166(1) of the Constitution. It was also contended Chat those teaching staff of the Corporation who desire to continuing in the pre-revised scale of pay would continue to enjoy the extension of service till 65 years. 8. He also said that the action taken by the Corporation and the State Government is in accordance with Article 166(1) of the Constitution. It was also contended Chat those teaching staff of the Corporation who desire to continuing in the pre-revised scale of pay would continue to enjoy the extension of service till 65 years. 8. I have perused the papers and heard the submissions of the learned Advocates for the parties. In my opinion the submissions made by Mr. Chatterjee and Mr. Mukherjee are of importance in coming to a conclusion about the validity of Resolution dated 27th July, 1990 issued by the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Local Government and Urban Development Department, which is now the vital document in connection with the age of superannuation of the Primary School Teachers of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. Let me first go to the undiluted Reg. 72 of the Service Regulations which is quoted as under:- "Except as otherwise provided in these regulations, an employee, whether in superior service or in inferior service, shall retire on attaining the age of 60 years and no employee shall continue in service beyond that age." The said Regulation was recommended for amendment by the Standing Finance and Establishment Committee of the Corporation in consultation with the Calcutta Municipal Service Commission and the Corporation at a meeting held on 16th July, 1971 duly confirmed the recommendations of the said Committee and the State Government by its Letter dated 4th November, 1971 as required under section 534(1) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 sanctioned the amendment. The said amended Regulation 72 as sanctioned is quoted as under :- "Provided further that the Teachers of Corporation Primary Schools may be retained in service up to the age of 65 (sixty-five) years by an extension for a period of not more than one year at a time, if in the opinion of the appointing authority the incumbents continue to be physically fit and mentally alert for the duties of their posts. The amended Resolution shall have retrospective effect from the 15th September, 1970. By Circular No. 37 of 1971-72 dared 19th November, 1971 the Education Officer of the Corporation circulated the above amendment to all Heads of C. P. Schools. The amended Resolution shall have retrospective effect from the 15th September, 1970. By Circular No. 37 of 1971-72 dared 19th November, 1971 the Education Officer of the Corporation circulated the above amendment to all Heads of C. P. Schools. By Resolution dated 22nd March, 1990 issued by be Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Local Government and Urban Development Department, it was announced that a Pay Commission to examine the present structure of pay and conditions of service of the employees of the C. M. C. etc. was constituted to suggest changes, desirable and feasible with due regard to the financial resources of the State Government and the Commission submitted its report in January, 1989. And thereafter on consideration of the Third Pay Commission's recommendations the Governor decided the scale of pay and other conditions of service in respect of the employees of the C. M. C. which was set out in the said Resolution. Paragraph 4 of the Resolution dated 22nd March, 1990 is the vital one as it relates to the Exercise of Option. By a Resolution dated 27th July, 1990 issued by the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Local Government and Urban Development Department, the Governor was pleased to order that a proviso be added below Clause (2) of Paragraph 4 of the Resolution of 22nd March, 1990 to the following effect :- "Provided that the teachers of the Schools run by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation shall have to exercise option for revised scale of pay as sanctioned in respect of them and the age of superannuation of all such teachers shall be fixed at 60 years and their pensionary benefits shall be guided by the existing orders in respect of Corporation's employees, as may be revised from lime to time. Provided further that the aforesaid teachers may, at their discretion, in writing, retain their existing scales of pay and existing terms and conditions of service, The option may be exercised within 30 days from the date of issue of this amendment and the implication of the words within 90 days in Clause (1) of Paragraph 4 of the Resolution shall stand modified to this extent." It was further ordered by the Governor that the Resolution be forwarded to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation and all concerned and published in an Extra-Ordinary issue of the Calcutta Gazette. It may be pointed out that Clause (4) of Paragraph 4 of the Resolution of 22nd March, 1990 makes it clear that option once exercised shall be final but the Resolution of 27th July, 1990 extended the date of exercising option for 30 days from 27th July, 1990. 9. In this connection it shall not be out of place to refer to the State Education Department's Memorandum dated 7th March, 1990 wherein reference bas been made to Resolution dated 30th January, 1987 constituting a Pay Commission with terms of reference to examine the structure of emoluments and conditions of service, inter alia, of teaching and non-teaching staff of Government Sponsored or Aided Schools upto Class XII standard with due regard to the financial resources of the State Government. The said Memorandum's Clause 17(1) relates to the age of superannuation and is quoted as under :- "Subject to the provisions of Para 5, the age of superannuation of all categories of teaching and non-teaching employees who elect to come over to revised scales of pay shall be fixed at 60 years, as per recommendation of the 3rd Pay Commission." The recommendation of the Third Pay Commission is quite wide and includes all categories of teaching and non-teaching employees of the Government Sponsored or Aided Schools upto Class XII and this way the Primary School Teachers of C. M. C. are also included within this category because the Corporation Primary Schools depends not exclusively on the revenue sources of the Corporation but also the Corporation is financially aided by the Government and the Corporation happens to be an agency of the State. 10. Mr. Chatterjee emphasised the point that under the amended section 85A(c) of the Calcutta Municipal Act. 1951 and the present similar provision under section 23 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 the authority to fix the age of superannuation is only the State Government by a Notification or by Rule and such Rule must be in accordance with section 600 of the C. M. C. Act, 1980. In this connection the learned Counsel very much relied upon the decision in the case of the Stale of Assam and Anr. v. Bharat Kala Bhandar Ltd. and Ors. In this connection the learned Counsel very much relied upon the decision in the case of the Stale of Assam and Anr. v. Bharat Kala Bhandar Ltd. and Ors. (Supra), which deals with Rule 126-A (4) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 where their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed :- "It is, however, not for the Court to indicate in detail what should be the procedure adopted by Government in a real emergency to consult the interests concerned, as that is a matter for Government to evolve for it. But some kind of public notice to the particular interests should be given indicating what the Government intends to do and inviting representations from those interests and if necessary calling for data from them and also giving an oral bearing to the representatives of the interests concerned. This does not mean that notice should be given to individual employers or employees. Nor this consultation should be of the same amplitude as adjudication by a quasi judicial tribunal. It is not necessary that oral evidence should be taken and witnesses should be called, examined and cross-examined and documents produced or called for and arguments beard as if the matter was being tried by a quasi-judicial tribunal. But some kind of collection of data with the help of the interests concerned and some kind of bearing or conference with the interests concerned seems to be the barest minimum necessary to enable Government to exercise the power conferred under sub-rule (4). Once it is clear, as we have no doubt that it is so that the order under sub-rule (4) is not to be passed merely on the subjective satisfaction of Government, it seems to us that even in real emergency this consultative procedure should not take long and should be over within a few weeks." In the aforesaid case the Notification related to Veneer mills which carry on the process of laying fine wood on inferior wood for purposes of beautifying furniture which are not necessary for the maintenance of supplies and services to the life of community and for securing public safety. Here the Supreme Court also held that the word "defence" was mechanically used by the State in the counter Affidavit. The principle laid down in this decision, in my opinion does not help the petitioners in the instant case. Here the Supreme Court also held that the word "defence" was mechanically used by the State in the counter Affidavit. The principle laid down in this decision, in my opinion does not help the petitioners in the instant case. The subject matter in the case of the State of Assam and Anr. is totally different from what this Court is dealing with. 11. The interpretation of section 23 of the Act of 1980 by Mr. Chatterjee does not appeal to me. He has very much questioned the Resolution dated 27th July, 1990 by which addition has been made after Paragraph 4(2) in the Resolution of 22nd March, 1990 by a Notification amending the age of retirement and according to him such Resolution cannot be effective unless it is gazetted. The proviso to section 603 of the Act of 1980 would not apply, according to him, to any Rule or Notification by the State Government and even after being gazetted such Resolution cannot have any retrospective effect vis-a-vis Circular No. 37 of 1971-72 dated 19th November. 1971 which amendment itself contained that the amended Regulation would have retrospective effect from 15th September, 1970. But here the Resolution of 27th July, 1990 has no such sanction from the Governor for the retrospective effect of the Resolution. He referred to the decision in the case of Ex-Major N. C. Singhal v. Director General, Armed Forces Medical Service and Anr. (Supra), in support of his contention. To me it appears that this matter relates to Article 309 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court held that as regards the condition of service of persons serving in the Union or a State, the Government has no power to alter or modify the conditions of service of a Government servant with retrospective effect to the prejudice of the Government servant. In support of this case be relied on a few more decisions. In the State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Raman lal Keshav Lal Sony and Ors. (Supra), it was held that under the Constitution of Panchayat the Members of Gujarat Panchayat Services are Government servants and the Third Amendment Act, 1978 of the Gujarat Panchayats is unconstitutional as it offends Articles 311 and 14 of the Constitution and is arbitrary and unreasonable. In Ex-Capt K. C. Arora and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors. (Supra), it was held that under the Constitution of Panchayat the Members of Gujarat Panchayat Services are Government servants and the Third Amendment Act, 1978 of the Gujarat Panchayats is unconstitutional as it offends Articles 311 and 14 of the Constitution and is arbitrary and unreasonable. In Ex-Capt K. C. Arora and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors. (Supra), the Rules 2 and 4 (ii) of the Punjab National Emergency (Concession,) Rules, 1965 as amended in 1976 were declared ultra vires the Constitution. In this case actually the rout lies in emergency when persons joined the Army as Commission Officers and after serving the Army for more than 5 years were appointed in the service of the Haryana Government as temporary Assistant Engineers. It was held by the Supreme Court that the Haryana Government could not take away the accrued rights of such persons by amending the aforesaid Rules. The fact of this case is totally different from the case under discussion. In T. R. Kapur and Ors. V. State of Haryana and Ors. (Supra), Rule 6(b) of the Punjab Services of Engineers Class I, Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1964 as amended in 1984 relating to promotion to the post of Executive Engineer Class I Service with retrospective effect was held contrary to section 82(6) of Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It was held that the proviso to section 82(6) of the P. R. Act, 1966 is in the nature of a fetter on the power of the Governor under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Thus the cases cited above by Mr. Chatterjee in no way rescue the instant writ petitioners. 12. It must be remembered that under the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 the Regulations used to be framed under section 85 of the said Act and such regulations were not required to be made either by Notification or by publication in the Gazette and the Circular No. 37 of 1971-72 dated 19th November, 1971 was added to Regulation 72 under the Act of 1951 without any such Notification or publication in the Gazette. By the amended section 85A(c) which came into effect in 1976 it was provided that the age of superannuation of officers or servants shall be determined by the State Government and no officer or servant after retirement shall be re-employed in any post without the prior sanction of the State Government. The said Act of 1951 was repealed by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 but inspite of repeal the Regulations framed under the Act of 1951 continued to remain in force on the strength of section 25 of the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899 which is quoted as under :- "Where any enactment is, after the commencement of this Act repealed and re-enacted by a Bengal Act or West Bengal Act with or without modification then unless it is otherwise expressly provided, any appointment, order, scheme, rule, bye-law, notification or form made or issued under the repealed enactment shall, so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions re-enacted, continue in force and be deemed to have been made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted, unless and until it is superseded by any appointment, order, scheme, rule, bye-law, notification or form made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted," And further under section 3(36) of the Bengal General Clauses Act "rule shall mean a rule made in exercise of a power conferred by any enactment, and shall include a Regulation made as a rule under any enactment". It means that the old Regulations continue to remain in force until they were superseded by new Rule. One may turn to section 20 of the C.M.C. Act, 1980 which relates to Service Regulations of the Corporation employees and provides that the terms and conditions of service of persons appointed shall be determined by regulations. It is clear that under the Act of 1980 the making of Regulations by the C.M.C. are subject to sections 602 and 603 of the said Act. Section 602 provides that the Corporation may make regulations not inconsistent with this Act and the Rules made thereunder are for discharging its functions under this Act. 13. Now comes the main question relating to the publication in the Gazette of the Notification of 27th July, 1990. Section 602 provides that the Corporation may make regulations not inconsistent with this Act and the Rules made thereunder are for discharging its functions under this Act. 13. Now comes the main question relating to the publication in the Gazette of the Notification of 27th July, 1990. The proviso to section 603 relating to the condition precedent to the making of regulations specifically provides that the provisions of this section should not apply to any regulations made under Chapter III (which relates to the Organization of the Corporation) and this automaticaly excludes section 23 of the Act of 1980 which provides that the age of superannuation of officers and employees of the Corporation shall be determined by the State Government and after retirement re-employment shall not be made without the prior sanction of the state Government. Though under section 4 of the Act of 1980 the State Government is to appoint the Corporation by Notification from a particular date charged with the Municipal Government of Calcutta and under section 2(58) of the said Act the Notification means a Notification published in the Official Gazette, but section 603 excludes the entire condition precedent to the making of Regulations so far Chapter III is concerned and the said Chapter includes section 23. 14. Toe contention of the petitioners that the amendment made by Resolution 27th July, 1990 violates the principles of natural justice is not sound. It is settled principle of law that in the matter of making Service Rules or Service Regulations by the State or its agency such as the C.M.C., the principles of natural justice have no application. Even a Rule under Article 309 of the Constitution or an Administrative Rule in absence of any Rule under Article 309 can be validly made without providing the employees an opportunity of being heard. The rule making power of the Executive under the Proviso of Article 309 is co-extensive with the power of the Legislature under the main paragraph of the said Article and hence it cannot be contended that the Governor could not change the age of superannuation with our Legislation (6) B. S. Vadera v. Union of India and Ors, AIR 1969 SC 118 ; (7) N. Lakshmana Rao and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., AIR 1975 SC 1646 . 15. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., AIR 1975 SC 1646 . 15. It is strange that when Circular No. 37 of 1971-72 dated 19th November, 1971 was issued by the Education Department of the Corporation giving scope for retirement at the age of 65 years with retrospective effect there was no hue and cry by the Corporation Primary School Teachers that the said Circular No. 37 could not be implemented without being gazetted. But when the Resolution of 27th July, 1990 has been issued by the Government of West Bengal strong objections have been taken that this amendment cannot be implemented without being gazetted and also cannot have retrospective effect. Though from the Resolution itself it appears that the Government has ordered that the amendment to Clause (1) of paragraph 4 of the Resolution of 22nd March, 1990 as contained in the Resolution of 27th July, 1990 by order of the Governor shall be published in an Extra-Ordinary issue of the Calcutta Gazette and there is no mention of any retrospective effect. A perusal of the Resolution of 27th July, 1990 read with the Resolution dated 22nd March, 1990 is quite convincing that the revised or the new pay scale is not thrust upon the Corporation Primary School Teachers arbitrarily. The Corporation Primary School Teachers have complete option to select whether they would opt under the revised scale of pay or would continue with the old scale of pay with the relevant benefits. I have already Stated in the case of the (8) West Bengal Headmasters' Association & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 1990 (1) Cal LJ 511 : 1990 (2) CHN 195 that one cannot have the best of both the worlds" according to the verdict of the Supreme Court in the case of (9) State of Gujarat v. G. C. Desai & Ors., AIR 1974 SC 246 . So far as the age of superannuation is concerned I may refer to the case of (10) M/s. British Paints (India) Ltd. v. Its Workmen, AIR 1966 SC 732 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court in words categorical said: "Considering that there has been a general improvement in the standard of health in this country and also considering that longevity has increased, fixation of age of retirement at 60 years appears to us to be quite reasonable in the present circumstances". The Supreme Court further described the age of superannuation at 60 years as "fair and proper", This decision of the highest judiciary of the land puts a halt once for all to the plea of extension of service of the Corporation Primary School Teachers by 5 years on year-wise basis, bringing total to 65 years as the age of superannuation. 16. It must be stated that there is no dispute as to the power of the State Government to determine the age of superannuation and the State Government has the right to determine the age of superannuation as enunciated by me in the case of West Bengal Headmaster's Association and Ors. The only argument advanced from different angles is that the age of superannuation as determined is hit by the provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. In the light of the discussion hereinbefore made I am of the opinion that the petitioners' case, has. no leg to stand on. After the issuance of the Resolution dated 27th July, 1990 containing the order of the Governor read with the Resolution dated 22nd March, 1990 there remains no irregularity or lacuna on the part of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation or the Stale of West Bengal in determining the age of superannuation at 60 years of the Primary School Teachers of the Corporation. The various steps taken by the Corporation including the amendment. of Reg. 72 of the Service Regulations on 30th August, 1990 and the order of the Governor hereinbefore referred to are in keeping with the provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. 17. In that view of the matter the writ application stands dismissed without costs. But the State Government is directed to publish the Resolution dated 27th July, 1990 in an Extra-Ordinary issue of the Calcutta Gazette within 25th September, 1990, if not already published. I further direct that the date of exercising options by the Corporation Primary School Teachers is extended till 25th September, 1990 because of the pendency of this writ petition. The State Government and the Calcutta Municipal Corporation will be at liberty to implement the Resolution dated 27th July, 1990 immediately after the extended date of exercising options is over. 18. Let xerox copy of the order be made available to the parties on usual undertaking and upon compliance of necessary formalities. The State Government and the Calcutta Municipal Corporation will be at liberty to implement the Resolution dated 27th July, 1990 immediately after the extended date of exercising options is over. 18. Let xerox copy of the order be made available to the parties on usual undertaking and upon compliance of necessary formalities. Liberty is also given to the Advocates-on-Records of the parties to take down operating portion of the order for communication.