Judgment :- J.B. Koshy, J. Since all these Writ Appeals are filed against a common judgment we are disposing of these Writ Appeals together. The main question to be decided in these cases is the dispute between employees appointed by the Panchayat Department and employees appointed by the Panchayats due to integration of these two services and special rules for the Kerala Panchayat Subordinate Service Rules, 1994 (Ext. P3 in O.P. No. 8697/94). Various Panchayats of the State were recruiting and appointing their own employees till the year 1977. But from the year 1977 all the employees of the Panchayats in the State were constituted into a Common Service and the powers of appointment were taken away from the local bodies and conferred on the Director of Panchayats. Thereafter, by Government Order dated 3rd February, 1987 they were treated as Government employees (Ext. P1 in O.P. No.8697/94). Panchayat Department employees and the Panchayat employees on the common service were integrated by Ext. P3 notification. Even though the above notification was published in the Gazette dated 21st June, 1994 it was given effect from 1st January, 1990. Petitioners who were originally Department employees challenges the above special rules on various grounds as according to them their conditions of services are affected unilaterally. It is also contended by them that the retrospective effect has affected their vested rights. Their contentions were considered by the learned judge in a very detailed judgment. 2. So far as the Government servants are concerned, their conditions of service depend on the rules in force and that rules can be unilaterally altered by the rule making authority. Now the only question placed before us is regarding the retrospective application of the above rule affecting the vested rights of the appellants-especially R.3(2) which is as follows: "(2) All appointments made to any category of post between the date of commencement of these rules and the date of publication of these rules shall be revised in accordance with the. Now the only question placed before us is regarding the retrospective application of the above rule affecting the vested rights of the appellants-especially R.3(2) which is as follows: "(2) All appointments made to any category of post between the date of commencement of these rules and the date of publication of these rules shall be revised in accordance with the. provisions of these rules: Provided that all consequential promotions will be made notionally without the benefit of arrears of pay and allowances: Provided further that a person promoted to any post during the period between 1st day of January, 1990 and 20th day of October, 1993 and holding that post as on 20th day of October, 1993 shall not be reverted for giving effect to these rules." It is the contention of the appellants that such a provision will affect he vested rights of the appellants given promotion before publication of the above rules. It is true that the rules provided that persons promoted to any post during the period between 1st January, 1990 and 20th October, 1993 and holding that post as on 20th October, 1993 shall not be reverted for giving effect to the rules. According to the appellants that is not an effective protection. That is only a passive protection and their promotion from the respective dates when they were promoted shall not be affected by retrospective operation. The power to frame rules to regulate the conditions of service under the proviso to Art.309 of the Constitution carries with it the power to amend or alter the rules with retrospective effect. S.2(1) of the Kerala Public Service Act, 1968 specifically authorises the Government to make rules either prospectively or retrospectively to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services. This rule is subject to a well recognised principle that the benefits acquired under the existing rules cannot be taken away by an amendment with retrospective effect. In other words, the Government have no power to make a rule with retrospective effect which affects or impairs vested rights. The appellants submitted a Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court reported in Chairman, Railway Board v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah ((1991) 6 S.C.C. 623) where all the rules regarding the same have considered in paragraph 24 of the above judgment. After analysing the decision what is the vested right is specifically mentioned. The appellants submitted a Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court reported in Chairman, Railway Board v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah ((1991) 6 S.C.C. 623) where all the rules regarding the same have considered in paragraph 24 of the above judgment. After analysing the decision what is the vested right is specifically mentioned. It is as follows: "24. In many of these decisions the expressions "bested rights" or "accrued rights" have been used while striking down the impugned provisions which had been given retrospective operation so as to have an adverse effect in the matter of promotion, seniority, substantive appointment, etc., of the employees. The said expressions have been used in the context of a right flowing under the relevant rule which was sought to be altered with effect from an anterior date and thereby taking away the benefits available under the rule in force at that time. It has been held that such an amendment having retrospective operation which has the effect of taking away a benefit already available to the employee under the existing rule is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the rights guaranteed under Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution" Similar views were expressed in K. Narayanan v. State of Karnataka (1994 Supp (1) SCC 44), B.S. Yadav v. State of Haryana (1980 (Supp) SCC 524), and State of Gujarat v. Raman Lai Keshav Lai Soni ((1983) 2 SCC 33). In S.S. Bola v. B.D. Sardana ((1997) 8 S.C.C. 522) a Bench of Three Judges of the Supreme Court again considered the matter and held that chances of promotion did not amount to a vested right. In that case the contention was that the amendment of the rules will affect future chances of promotion and it will result in displacement of the seniority. As repeatedly held by the Supreme Court the right to get promotion or expectation to get promotion is not a vested right. The promotions can be governed only on the basis of the rules existing at the time of promotion. 3. According to the appellants they were promoted on the basis of the rules existing on the date of promotion. Such vested rights cannot be taken away by retrospective amendment. Therefore, even though special rules can be framed retrospectively, the rules cannot take away the vested rights and mere protection given to them by the Government against their reversion is not enough. Such vested rights cannot be taken away by retrospective amendment. Therefore, even though special rules can be framed retrospectively, the rules cannot take away the vested rights and mere protection given to them by the Government against their reversion is not enough. The contention of the Government which was accepted by the learned judge was that there were demands from large number of employees for integration and giving benefits from 1987 onwards. At the same time appellants who are small in number insisted protection for future right and as a viamedia date 1.1.90 was taken. Apart from that no nexus is shown to the date 1.1.90, the date of implementation. However, it is stated that the Cabinet has decided the matter finally after referring with P.S.C. to implement the rule in its meeting held on 20th October, 1993. Thereafter only rules were published. That is the reason for the provision that the employees promoted on or before 20.10.93 shall not be reverted was incorporated. Since Cabinet has decided the matter on 20th October, 1993 at the maximum that date has some nexus. Any promotion effected on the basis of the existing rules prior to the publication of the notification up to 20th October, 1993 shall not be affected by the special rules as vested rights cannot be affected. If a person is promoted 'before 20th October, 1993, his promotion from that date cannot be affected at all by the retrospective effect as persons promoted before 20th October, 1993 had already accrued the vested right. However, provisional promotions effected after 20th October, 1993, i.e. after the Cabinet decision will not get the above right. So with the observation that vested rights of the persons who got promotion on the basis of the rules existing prior to 20th October, 1993 shall not be affected by the amended rules all these writ appeals are disposed of. They should be treated as promoted with the respective dates of promotion and retrospectivity of the rules cannot change their rights. Consequential benefits may be made expeditiously, in any event, within five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.