P. C. Phukan, J.-All Manipur Retiring Govt Employees and its eleven members by name filed a writ petition praying for issuance of an appropriate writ directing the Govt of Manipur not to retire the State Govt employees before they attain the age of sixty years by treating FR 56 as amended by Fundamental (Amendment) Rules, 1998 raising the retirement age of Govt employees from fifty-eight to sixty years to be in force in the State of Manipur. 2. The aforesaid writ petition was filed in the Principal Seat at Guwahati and was registered as CR No. 6574 of 1998. On transfer to Imphal Bench, it was renumbered as WP (C) No. 103 of 1999. By an order dated 11.2.1999 passed therein, the learned Single Judge opined that the matter involved an important legal issue requiring consideration by a larger Bench. Then, as per order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice it was listed before the Division Bench. 3. The aforesaid WP (C) No. 103 of 1999 and also WP (C) Nos 177, 221, 443, 174 of 1999 and Civil Rule No. 772 of 1998 have arisen out of similar facts and involve common question of law and hence are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 4. The Writ Petition (C) No. 103 of 1999 was filed on 21.12.1998 when some of the petitioners were to attain the age of fifty eight years on 31st December, 1998, some on 31.01.1999 and some others on 28.02.1999. The petitioner Mr. Ibohal Singh was already served the order No. 451 dated 2.1.1.98 requiring him to retire wef 31.12.1998 on his attaining the age of fifty eight years on that date. The other petitioners were apprehending that similar orders would be served on them also. They formed an Association, namely, All Manipur Retiring Govt Employees Association with the object of pursuing the matter of application of FR 56 as amended by the Fundamental (Amendment) Rules, 1998 raising the retirement age of Govt employees from 58 to 60 years to the employees under the Govt of Manipur. 5. Another set of similarly situated Manipur Govt Employees formed another Association called, the Retiring Govt Employees Forum with similar object and filed Civil Rule No. 772 of 1998. 6. 5. Another set of similarly situated Manipur Govt Employees formed another Association called, the Retiring Govt Employees Forum with similar object and filed Civil Rule No. 772 of 1998. 6. Similarly situated petitioners, seventeen in WP (C) No. 177 of 1999, three in WP (C) No. 221 of 1999 and one each in WP (C) No. 443 of 1999 and WP (C) 174 of 1999 filed the respective writ petitions with similar prayer. 7. Since in the above writ petitions, this Court refused to pass any interim order directing the State Govt not to retire its employees before they attain the age of sixty years, it is submitted at the Bar that the Govt orders retiring some of the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petitions along with the Govt orders retiring some others before the filing of these writ petitions ought to be set aside and quashed. 8. We have heard Dr. NK Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP (C) No. 103 of 1999, Mr. A. Jagjit Singh and Mr. Tarunkumar Haobam, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP (C) No. 443 of 1999, Mr. RK Nokulsana, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in WP (C) No. 221 of 1999, and Mr. N. Kotiswor Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP (C) No. 177 of 1999 and CR No. 772 of 1998, and Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP (C) No. 174 of 1999. We have also heard Mr. T. Nandakumar Singh, learned Advocate General, Manipur for the State respondents and the learned Central Govt Standing Counsel for the respondent Union of India in the above writ petitions. We have further considered the written argument submitted by Mr. Tarunkumar Haobam, learned counsel for the petitioners and also the written argument submitted by Mr. T. Nandakumar Singh, learned Advocate General, Manipur for the State respondent. 9. Manipur became a State on 21st January 1972. Till then Manipur was a Union Territory, and all the Central legislations/rules/regulations/orders etc governing the service conditions of the Govt employees including the Fundamental Rules, 1922 with FR 56 (a) therein were applicable to the employees under the Union Territory -of Manipur. 9. Manipur became a State on 21st January 1972. Till then Manipur was a Union Territory, and all the Central legislations/rules/regulations/orders etc governing the service conditions of the Govt employees including the Fundamental Rules, 1922 with FR 56 (a) therein were applicable to the employees under the Union Territory -of Manipur. FR 56 (a) as it existed on 21.01.1972 reads: “FR 56 (a): Except as otherwise provided in this Rule, every Govt servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month hi which he attains the age of fifty eight years.” 10. On 21.01.1972, ie the date of attainment of Statehood, the Govt of the State of Manipur issued the following Notification (Annexure A/1) under Article 309 of the Constitution: “Notification Imphal, the 21st January, 1972 In exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Article 309 of the Constitution, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to order that all the rules/regulations/orders etc governing the conditions of service of the persons serving in connection with the affairs of the erstwhile Union Territory of Manipur which were in force immediately before 21st January, 1972 will continue to be in force and win apply to the persons serving in connection with the affairs of the new State of Manipur subject to such modifications as may be ordered from time to time and until further orders and with the adaptation that wherever the word/words Chief Commissioner/Administrator/ Lieutenant Governor has/have been referred to in the aforesaid rule/regulations/ orders etc/ the same will be construed as referring to the Govt of Manipur. By order etc. Sd/- (DG Bhave), Chief Secretary to the Govt of Manipur.” 11. Subsequently the Govt of Manipur issued another, notification dated 6.11.1976(Annexure A/2). The relevant portion thereof reads: “Notification Imphal, the 6th Nov/1976 In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution the Governor, Manipur hereby makes the following rules, namely: 1. These rules may be called, the Manipur Service Law (1st Amendment) Rules, 1976. 2. These shall apply to the employees under the Govt of Manipur to the extent to which Fundamental Rules and Civil Service Regulations are applicable. 3. These shall come into force from the 1st day of 1976. In Rule 56 to the Fundamental Rules: 2.1. These rules may be called, the Manipur Service Law (1st Amendment) Rules, 1976. 2. These shall apply to the employees under the Govt of Manipur to the extent to which Fundamental Rules and Civil Service Regulations are applicable. 3. These shall come into force from the 1st day of 1976. In Rule 56 to the Fundamental Rules: 2.1. For the existing clauses (a), (b), (c) and (e) the following clauses shall respectively be substituted, namely : FR 56 (a) Except as otherwise provided in this Rule, every Govt servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty eight years.” 12. The Central Govt amended FR 56 (a) raising the retirement age from 58 to 60 years by the Fundamental (Amendment) Rules, 1998. The relevant portion of the notification dated 13.5.98, (Annexure A/5) is extracted below : “Notification New Delhi, the 13th May/98 GSR No.248 (E). In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 and clause (5) of Article 148 of the Constitution and after consultation with the Comptroller & Auditor General of India in relation to persons, serving in the India Audit and Accounts Department, the President hereby makes the following rules, namely: (1) These Rules may be called the Fundamental (Amendment) Rules, 1998. (2) They shall come into force from the date of their publication in the Official Gazette, (3) In the Fundamental Rules, in Rule 56: (a) For clause (a) the following clauses shall be substituted namely : “(a) Except as otherwise provided in this rule every Govt servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years.” 13. The Govt of Manipur, however, has not issued any notification for substituting FR 56 (a) as amended by Manipur Service Law (1st Amendment) Rules, 1975 to raise the retirement age of its employees from fifty eight to sixty years and the Govt of Manipur have continued to retire its employees on their attaining the age of fifty eight years. 14. It has been strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the State Govt could not have retired its employees before they attained the age of sixty years. 14. It has been strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the State Govt could not have retired its employees before they attained the age of sixty years. For FR 56(a) as amended by the Fundamental (Amendment) Rules, 1998 raising the retirement age from fifty eight to sixty years is very much in force in the State of Manipur in view of die State Govt notification dated 21.1.1972 (Annexure A/1) declaring that all the rules/regulations/orders etc governing the service conditions of the Govt employees which were in force immediately before 21.1.1972 (i.e. the date of attainment of Statehood) will continue to be in force in the State of Manipur subject to such modification as may be ordered from time to time. It has been contended that Fundamental Rules, 1922 will continue to be in force in the State, and Fundamental Rules, 1922 means Fundamental Rules, 1922 with up-to date amendments. Hence, FR 56 (a) thereof in its amended from raising the retirement age to sixty years will be in force in the State of Manipur until and unless the State Govt makes a modification in the FR 56 (a) in its application to the State of Manipur to the affect that the retirement age of its employees would remain at fifty eight years. 15. Mr. Tanmkumar Haobam, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that no State Govt notification adopting FR 56 (a) in its amended form is necessary, because FR 56 (a) in its amended form automatically applies to the State Govt employees. For, Fundamental Rules, 1922 with upto date amendment is in force in the State by virtue of the State Govt notification dated 21.1.1972 (Annexure A/1). 16. Referring to a decision in C. Ramkonde Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh ( AIR 1989 AP 235 ), Mr. Tarunkumar Haobam submits that the rule making authority frame rules merely as the delegate of the Legislature and the expression 'enactment' include rules. 16. Referring to a decision in C. Ramkonde Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh ( AIR 1989 AP 235 ), Mr. Tarunkumar Haobam submits that the rule making authority frame rules merely as the delegate of the Legislature and the expression 'enactment' include rules. The main thrust of his argument is that the State Govt notification dated 21.01.1972 (Annexure A/1) issued in exercise of rule making power under Article 309 of the Constitution is an adopting enactment which adopted by general reference (as distinguished from specific relevance to another enactment) all rules/regulations/order etc governing service conditions of Govt employees which were in force immediately before O.72 etc rules include Fundamental Rules, 1922, and as such FR 56 (a) therein as amended by the Fundamental (Amendment) Rules, 1998 in applicable to the State Govt employees. In support of his argument the learned counsel quotes the following extract from the book, 'Statute and Statutory Construction' (3rd Edition Vol II) page 550) by JG Sutherland: “A statute which refers to the law of a subject generally adopts the law on the subject as of the time the law is invoked. This will include all the amendments and modifications of the law subsequent to the time the reference, statute was enacted.” 17. In Bijya vs. Smti Gopikabai, AIR 1978 SC 793 , relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as by the learned Advocate General, Manipur for the State respondent, it has been held : “27. Broadly speaking, legislation by referential incorporation falls in two categories; First, where a statute by specific reference incorporates the provisions of another statute as of the time of adoption. Second, where a statute incorporates by general reference the law concerning a particular subject, as a genus. In the case of the former, die subsequent amendments made in the referred-statute cannot automatically be read into the adopting statute. In the case of latter category, it maybe presumed that the legislative intent was to include all the subsequent amendments also, made from time to time in the generic law on the subject adopted by general reference. This principle of construction of a reference statute has been neatly summed up by Sutherland, thus: “A statute which refers to the law of a subject generally adopts the law on the subject as of the time the law is invoked. This principle of construction of a reference statute has been neatly summed up by Sutherland, thus: “A statute which refers to the law of a subject generally adopts the law on the subject as of the time the law is invoked. This will include all the amendments and modifications of the law subsequent to the time the reference statute was enacted.” (Vide, Sutherland's Statutory Construction Third Edition, Art 5208, page 5208). Corpus, Juris Secundum also enunciates the same principle in these terms: “...Where the reference in an adopting statute is to the law generally which governs the particular subject, and not to any specific statute or part thereof...... the reference will be held to include the law as it stands at the time it is sought to be applied, with all the changes made from tune to time, at least the purpose of the adopting statute”. 18. A mere look at the State Govt notification dated 21.1.1972 (Annexure A/1) issued under Article 309 as an adopting enactment would show that this notification instead of referring to a particular statute or to any specific provision therein, and for that matter, instead of referring to the Fundamental Rules, 1922 or to FR 56 (a) therein refers to the law generally which governs the particular subject, viz the law governing service conditions of Govt employees. In such a case, in view of the above decision of the Apex Court, it has to be presumed that the intent of the rule making authority was to include all the subsequent amendments made from time to time in the generic law on the subject, ie the law governing the service conditions of Govt employees adopted by general reference. Such law includes die Fundamental Rules, 1922. Hence, the amendment made in FR 56 (a) therein by the Fundamental (Amendment) Rules, 1998 could have been automatically read into the adopting enactment, ie die State Govt notification dated 21.1.12 (Annexure A/1). The matter, however, did not end there. Subsequent to issuance of die notification dated :21,1.72, the State Govt issued another notification dated 6.11.76, (Annexure A/2) enacting the Manipur Service Law (1st Amendment) Rules, 1976. Unlike the earlier notification dated 21.1.72, dieses Rules of 1976 by specific reference incorporates FR 56 (a) of the Fundamental Rules, 1992 as of the time of adoption fixing the retirement age at 58 (fifty eight) years. Unlike the earlier notification dated 21.1.72, dieses Rules of 1976 by specific reference incorporates FR 56 (a) of the Fundamental Rules, 1992 as of the time of adoption fixing the retirement age at 58 (fifty eight) years. In such a case, in view of die above decision of the Apex Court, the subsequent amendments made in FR 56 (a) by the Fundamental (Amendment) Rules, 1998 cannot automatically be read into the adopting enactment, ie the Manipur Service Law (1st amendment) Rules, 1976 communicated vide State Govt notification dated 6.1.1.76 (Annexure A/2). That being the position, the Manipur Service Law (1st Amendment) Rules, 1976, and not FR 56 (a) as amended by the Fundamental (Amendment) Rules, 1998, occupies the field. Hence no writ directing the Govt of Manipur hot to retire its employees before they attain the age of sixty years can be issued. 19. Besides, Bijya vs. Smti Gopikabai, AIR 1978 SC 793 , the learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the decisions reported in AIR 1963 SC 553 , AIR 1975 SC 17 , AIR 1956 SC 285 , AIR 1961 SC 838 , AIR, 1962 SC 316, AIR 1970 SC 1643 , AIR 1979 SC 799, AIR 1994 SC 169 , AIR 1953 SC 357 , AIR 1970 SC 1641 , AIR 1968 SC 102 , AIR 1977 SC 2021 and AIR 1984 SC 167. We have considered these decisions and have found that the same are of no assistance to the petitioners in view of what has been stated above. 20. In the result, these writ petition, namely, WP (C) Nos 103,174,177, 221, 443 of 1999 and Civil Rule No. 772 of 1998 are dismissed. 21. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.