A. GOPAL REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, in the instant writ petition, seeks a mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in not allowing the service benefits of leave encashment for 240 days and 20 months Gratuity consequent on his retirement from service as contrary to the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Rc No. 33842/95-C3 dated 7-11-1996 and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to pay the service benefits to the petitioner together with interest at 12% p. a. from 1-4-1996 till the date of payment. The facts, which are not in dispute, are as under. ( 2 ) THE petitioner while working as Supervisor in the 2nd respondent Cooperative Bank at Eluru retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-3-1996. According to the service rules existing at the time of petitioner s retirement, he is entitled to leave encashment for 180 days and Gratuity for 15 months. While he was in service the 1st respondent addressed a letter dated 4-1-1996 to the 2nd respondent requesting to place the matter before the Board regarding providing encashment of earned leave for 240 days in place of 180 days and also Gratuity at 20 months pay last drawn instead of 15 months. In response to the said letter, the Board of Management of the 2nd respondent-Bank passed a resolution on 14-3-1996 vide resolution No. 23 to provide encashment of earned leave for 240 days in place of 180 days and also the Gratuity at 20 months last pay drawn instead of 15 months presently enjoying by the DCC Bank, Eluru employees as per award and to request the 1st respondent to approve the same. The said resolution was forwarded by the 2nd respondent through their letter dated 21-3-1996 to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent by proceedings Rc. No. 33842/ 9503 dated 7-11-1996 accorded permission for leave encashment and also Gratuity as resolved by the 2nd respondent but the said benefit shall not be extended with any retrospective effect. It means the said benefit will have prospective, effect i. e. , 7-11-1996 the date on which permission was accorded. In view of the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vedula Venkataramana made the following submissions. It means the said benefit will have prospective, effect i. e. , 7-11-1996 the date on which permission was accorded. In view of the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vedula Venkataramana made the following submissions. A. When the employees of the 2nd respondent-Bank who retired on or after 7-11-1996 are eligible for leave encashment for 240 days, whereas the employees who retired prior to the cut off date were eligible only 180 days. Similarly the employees who retired on or after 7-11-1996 entitled for 20 months Gratuity whereas the employees who retired prior to that date are entitled for only 15 months Gratuity, which amounts to discrimination and there is no rationale for denying the benefit prior to the said date. B. When the 2nd respondent-Bank passed the resolution on 14-3-1996 the petitioner was in service. Only procedural formalities have to be followed by the Bank. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit for the delay in following the procedural formalities. C. When there is no legal impediment to the Bank for payment of the said amount, granting permission by the 1st respondent from 7-11-1996 instead of from the date of passing resolution i. e. , 14-3-1996 is highly arbitrary by placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in U. P. Avas Evami Vikas Parishad v. Friends Co-operative Housing, AIR 1996 SC 114 . ( 4 ) ON the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank contended that any resolution passed by the respondent-Bank for amending the bye-laws will have prospective effect and the same will come into operation only when it is approved by tie 1st respondent. The petitioner retired from service much prior to the date of according permission by the 1st respondent. Therefore, he is not entitled to the said benefit. ( 5 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions the only point that emerges for consideration is whether the resolution passed by the 2nd respondent-Bank will come into operation from the date of resolution or from the date the of approval by the 1st respondent. Therefore, he is not entitled to the said benefit. ( 5 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions the only point that emerges for consideration is whether the resolution passed by the 2nd respondent-Bank will come into operation from the date of resolution or from the date the of approval by the 1st respondent. ( 6 ) IN order to resolve the dispute it is relevant to note the statutory provision in this regard, namely, Section 16 (1) and (5) of the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 which reads as under:16 (1) : No amendment of any bye-law of a society shall be valid unless such amendment has been registered under this Act. Where such an amendment is not express to come into operation on a particular day, then it shall come into force on the day on which it is registered. 16 (5): If in the opinion of the Registrar, an amendment of the bye-laws of a society is necessary or desirable in the interest of such society or of the Co-operative movement, he may, in the manner prescribed, call upon the society to make any amendment within such time as he may specify. If the society fails to make such an amendment within the time so specified, the Registrar may, after giving the society an opportunity of making its representation, register such amendment and forward the society by registered post a copy of the amendment together with a certificate signed by him; such a certificate shall be conclusive evidence that the amendment has been duly registered; and such an amendment shall have the same effect as an amendment of any bye-law made by the society. Rule 5 of the A. P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 contemplates that bye-laws of the society shall not be contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rule 5 (24) of the Rules deals with method of recruitment, conditions of service and the authority competent to fix revised pay scales, which reads as under: Rule 5 (24): the method of recruitment, the conditions of service and the authority competent to fix, revise or regulate the scales of pay and allowances of paid officers and servants to the society and the procedure to be followed in the disposal of disciplinary cases against them. ( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that the 1st respondent called upon the 2nd respondent for amendment of the bye-laws which governs the service conditions with regard to payment of leave encashment and Gratuity through his proceedings dated 4-1-1996 and in response to the same, Board of Management of the 2nd respondent-Bank passed a resolution on 14-3-1996 and submitted the same to the 1st respondent for approval and the same was approved on 7-11-1996. Section 116 (c) also authorizes the Society to fix the staffing pattern, qualification, pay scales and other allowances for its employees with the prior approval of the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. Section 16 (1) of the Act in clear and unequivocal terms envisaged that no amendment of the bye-laws of the Society shall be valid unless such amendment is registered under Act and come into operation on the date when it is registered. In the present case, the Board of Management of the 2nd respondent-Bank passed resolution on 14-3-1996 as directed by the 1st respondent under Sub-section (5) of Section 16 and the same will be come into operation when it is approved by the 1st respondent but not from the anterior date, namely from the date of passing resolution. ( 8 ) IT is well settled that any rule or regulation of the society is made by the person or authority to whom such powers have been delegated by legislature it will come into operation only from the specified date as per the language employed in the statutory provision, unless the statutory provision by express terms or by necessary implication empower the authority concerned to make a rule or regulation with retrospective effect. ( 9 ) THE Apex Court in I. T. Officer, Alleppy v. Me. Ponnoose, AIR 1970 SC 385 , categorically held that where no language is found authorizing in express terms or by necessary implication the authority concerned to make the rule with retrospective effect, any rule, regulation or bye-law made by the person or authority exercising subordinate legislative function will only be prospective in operation and cannot operate retrospectively. ( 10 ) IN view of the same, I do not see any force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of leave encashment of 240 days and Gratuity for 20 months. ( 10 ) IN view of the same, I do not see any force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of leave encashment of 240 days and Gratuity for 20 months. ( 11 ) THE writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.