Judgment :- In these writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to extend their age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 year in terms of the Government Order dated 28.7.2008.They have further sought for a declaration that the amendment to Rule 18(2) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules dated 17.9.2008 is illegal and contrary to Government Order dated 28.7.2008 and to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of amended Rule 18(2) w.e.f. 17.7.2008 as per the Government Order dated 28.7.2008. 2. The petitioners are the officers and employees of different Cooperative Societies in the State of Karnataka. The Co-operative Societies had adopted the age of retirement of its employees on par with the employees of the State Government. The State Government took a policy decision to extend the age of retirement of its employees from 58 to 60 years with effect from 17.7.2008 as per the notification dated 28.7.2008. The said notification was made applicable to the employees of the local bodies and aided educational institutions. The employees association of the Co-operative societies made a representation to the competent authority to enhance the age of superannuation of the officers and employers of Co-operative Societies to 60 years as per the representation dated 4.8.2008 (Annexure ‘C’ in W.P.No.11469/2008). A draft notification was issued by the State Government dated 28.8.2008 for amendment of Rule 18(2) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules (for short ‘Rules’) enhancing the age of retirement of the officers and employees of the Cooperative Societies to 60 years. Thereafter, a notification was issued on 17.9.2008 amending rule 18(2) by substituting the words “60 years” in place of “58 years”. The said notification came into force from the date of its publication. The petitioners have completed 58 years between 17.7.2008 to 1.9.2008. Therefore, they have filed these writ petitions contending that the amended Rule should have been brought into force with effect from 17.7.2009 as per the Government Order dated 28.7.20008. 3. The respondents have filed their statement of objections contending that the Government issued an order on 28.7.2008 enhancing the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years with effect from 17.7.2008 applicable to the employees of the State Government, local bodies and aided educational institutions. The said notification does not apply to the officers and employees of the Co-operative societies. The said notification does not apply to the officers and employees of the Co-operative societies. Every cooperative society is obliged to apply for and obtain registration under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act’). The management of the Society vests in its General Body/Managing Committee. The Bye-laws, rules and Regulations of a Co-operative Society shall be in accordance with the objects of the Society and shall not be contrary to the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. The Managing Committee has accordingly formulated Subsidiary rules governing the service conditions of its employees. Section 129 enables the State Government to make Rules for the whole or any part of the State and for any class of Co-operative Societies after previous publication and by notification in the official gazette. Section 129(2)(o) provides for framing Rules regarding recruitment and conditions of service of employees of Co-operative Societies. Rule 18(2) states that the compulsory retirement of an officer or employee of any Co-operative Society is the date on which he attains the age of 58 years. The State Government has issued a draft notification dated 28.8.2008 for amendment of Rule 18 by providing the age of retirement at 60 years instead of 58 years. The amendment will come into force only upon publication and notification in the official gazette as required under Section 129 of the Act. They have sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. 1. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the State Government has taken a policy decision to extend the age of retirement of the employees of the State Government, local bodies and aided educational institutions from 58 to 60 years w.e.f. 17.7.2008. Accordingly, the State Government has issued an Order dated 28.7.2008 enhancing the age of retirement w.e.f. 17.07.2008. The employees of the co-operative Societies approached the competent authority seeking extension of their age of retirement to 60 years. It is further contended that during the pendency of the writ petitions, the State Government has taken steps to amend Rule 18(2) for enhancing the age of retirement of the officers and employees of Co-operative societies from 58 years to 60 years and a notification dated 28.8.2008 was issued proposing the age of retirement to 60 years. However, amendment to Rule 18(2) was given effect to from the date of publication of the notification dated 17.9.2008. However, amendment to Rule 18(2) was given effect to from the date of publication of the notification dated 17.9.2008. The said amendment would deprive the policy decision of the State Government, which has been extended from 17.7.2008 to all the employees except the employees of the Co-operative Societies. There is absolutely no rationale behind giving effect to the said amendment from 17.9.2008. It is further argued that the words ‘58 years’ has been substituted by the words ‘60 years’ in Rule 18(2). Therefore, the amendment shall have retrospective effect from the date of framing of the Rules by the State Government in exercise of its Rule making power. 2. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocates appearing for the respondents submits that Section 129 enables the State Government to make Rules for the whole or any part of the State and for any class of Co-operative Societies after previous publication and by notification in the Official Gazette. Section 129(2)(o) provides for making Rules regarding recruitment and conditions of service of employees of Co-operative Societies. Accordingly, Rule 18(2) has been amended, which provides that the compulsory retirement of an Officer or employee of any Co-operative society is the date on which he attains the age of 60 years. The said Rule was amended as per the notification dated 17.9.2008 gazetted on the same day. Therefore, amendment to Rule 18(2) has come into force from 17.9.2008. Since the petitioners have retired before 1.9.2008, they are not entitled for the benefit of the said amendment. It is further argued that the notification amending Rule 18(2) is read as a whole would indicate that it is prospective in nature. The legislative intend is also to give effect to the notification prospectively from the date of its publication. 3. 6. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record. 4. 7. The undisputed facts are that the State Government enhanced the age of superannuation of Government Servants, employees of local bodies and aided educational institutions from 58 to 60 years w.e.f. 17.7.2008 as per the Government order dated 28.7.2008. The association of the employees of Co-operative Societies made a representation to the competent authorities to enhance their age of retirement on par with the age of retirement of State Government employees. The association of the employees of Co-operative Societies made a representation to the competent authorities to enhance their age of retirement on par with the age of retirement of State Government employees. The State Government took a decision on 13.8.2008 to increase the age of retirement of the officers and employees of the Cooperative Societies, which is clear from the note at Annexure ‘E’ dated 13.8.2008 (in W.P.No.11469/2008). A draft notification was issued on 28.8.2008 proposing to amend Rule 18(2) by providing the age of retirement at 60 years instead of 58 years. This was followed by a notification dated 17.9.2008 amending Rule 18(2) enhancing the age of retirement to 60 years. 5. 8. The Karnataka cooperative Societies Act, 1959, has been enacted to consolidate and amend the laws relating to Co-operative Societies in the State of Karnataka. A Cooperative Society has the status of a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal. Section 129 of the Act provides for making Rules to carry out the purpose of the Act. Subsection(2)(o) of Section 129 as amended by Act No.25/1998, which has come into effect from 15.8.1998, provides for making of Rules for the recruitment, including qualification for recruitment and conditions of service of employees of cooperative Society. The said provisions are as under: “129. Powers to make Rules: .(1) The State Government may, for the whole or any part of the State and for any class of Cooperative Societies, after previous publication, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the purpose of this Act. .(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such Rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:- .(o) the recruitment including qualification for recruitment and conditions of service of employees of cooperative societies.” Section 129(4) inserted by Act No.40 of 1964, which has come into force w.e.f. 26.6.1965 authorises the State Government to make Rules under the Act with retrospective effect. The said section makes it clear that when a rule is made under the said provision, the reasons for making the rules shall be specified in a statement before both Houses of the State Legislature. The said section makes it clear that when a rule is made under the said provision, the reasons for making the rules shall be specified in a statement before both Houses of the State Legislature. The said provision is as under: “Sec.129(4): A Rule under this Act may be made with retrospective effect and when such a rule is made the reasons for making the rule shall be specified in a statement laid before both Houses of the State legislature, subject to any modification under section 130 every rule made under this Act shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.” 9. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 129 of the Act, the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules, 1960 have been made on 18.2.1960 published in the Karnataka gazette on 22.2.1960. Rule 18(a) provides for the conditions of service of officers and employees of Cooperative Societies. Rule 18(2) provides for the age of retirement of an officer or an employee of a Co-operative Society. It states that the date of compulsory retirement of an Officer or employee of any cooperative Society is the date on which he attains the age of 58 years. The proviso to the said Rules states that in respect of an Officer or an employee of any Cooperative Society to whom rule 50 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies rules, 1952, was applicable, the date of compulsory retirement shall be the date on which he attains the age of 60 years. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 has been amended as per the notification No.CO.140.CLM.2008 dated 17.9.2008. In sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 for the words “58 years”, the words “60 years” has been substituted. Rule 18(2) before its amendment is as under: “Rule 18(2): Age of Retirement: The date of compulsory retirement of an officer or employee of any cooperative society is the date on which he attains the age of fifty-eight years; Provided further that in respect of an Officer or an employee of any cooperative society to whom Rule 50 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules, 1952, was applicable, the date of compulsory retirement shall be the date on which he attains the age of sixty years.” 10. The notification dated 17.9.2008 amending Rule 18(2) is as under: “NOTIFICATION No.Co.140.CLM.2008, Bangalore, dated 17th September, 2008 Whereas the draft of the following rules further to amend the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules, 1960 which the Government of Karnataka proposes to make in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 129 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 (Karnataka Act 11 of 1959 was published as required by subsection (1) of the said Section in Notification No.CO.140CLM.2008, dated 28.8.2008 in part IV-A of the Karnataka Gazette extraordinary dated 28.8.2008 inviting objections and suggestions from all person likely to be affected thereby within fifteen days from the date of its publication in the official Gazette, And whereas, the said Gazette was made available to the public on 28th August 2008. And whereas, objections and suggestions have been received and considered by the State Government. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 129 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 (Karnataka Act 11 of 1959). The Government of Karnataka hereby makes the following rules, namely: RULES 1. 1. Title and Commencement: (1) These Rules may be called the Karnataka Cooperative Societies (Second Amendment) rules, 2008. 2. 2. They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the official gazette. 3. 3. Amendment of rule 18: In the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules, 1960 in Rule 18, in sub-rule (2): .(i) for the words “fifty eight years”, the words “sixty years” shall be substituted. .(ii) Proviso shall be omitted.” (underlining is by me) 1. 11. It is clear from the aforesaid notification that the amendment has come into force from the date of its publication i.e. from 17.9.2008. However, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the words ‘58 years’ has been substituted by the words ‘60 years’ in Rule 18(2). Therefore, amendment must be taken to have been in existence from the date on which the Government Order dated 28.7.2008 came into force. In this connection, learned Counsel strongly rely on the decision of the Apex court in Shamrao V. Parulekar and Others Vs. District Magistrate, Thana, Bombay and others AIR 1952 SC 324 . Therefore, question for consideration is whether rule 18(2) as amended by notification dated 17.9.2008 has retrospective effect? 12. In this connection, learned Counsel strongly rely on the decision of the Apex court in Shamrao V. Parulekar and Others Vs. District Magistrate, Thana, Bombay and others AIR 1952 SC 324 . Therefore, question for consideration is whether rule 18(2) as amended by notification dated 17.9.2008 has retrospective effect? 12. A statute is a command of the legislature and the conventional way of interpreting or construing a Statute is to seek the ‘intention’ of its maker. If a statutory provision is open to more than one interpretation, the court has to choose that interpretation which represents the true intention of the legislature, which is also referred to as the ‘legal meaning’ of the statutory provision. In this connection. It is profitable to quote a passage from the Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, which is as under: “It is impossible even for the most imaginative legislature to forestall exhaustively situations and circumstances that may emerge after enacting a Statute where its application may be called for. The function of the Courts is only to expound and not to legislate. The numerous rules of interpretation or construction formulated by Courts are expressed differently by different Judges and support may be found in these formulations for apparently contradictory propositions.” 2. 13. It is the cardinal principle of construction that every Statute prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication to have retrospective effect. Therefore, a close attention must be paid to the language of the statutory provisions for determining the scope of the retrospectivity intended by the Legislature. If there is an obvious anomaly in the application of the law, the Court could shape the law to remove the anomaly. If the liberal reading of the provision giving retrospectivity produces absurdity and anomalies, the court could discard such interpretation and adopt an interpretation, which will give effect to the purpose of the legislation. The real issue in each case is as to the scope of particular enactment having regard to its language and the object discernible from the Statute read as a whole. 14. In Shamrao V. Parulekar’s case (supra), the Apex court was considering the effect of the amendment to the preventive Detention Act, 1950. The real issue in each case is as to the scope of particular enactment having regard to its language and the object discernible from the Statute read as a whole. 14. In Shamrao V. Parulekar’s case (supra), the Apex court was considering the effect of the amendment to the preventive Detention Act, 1950. The court held that when the subsequent Act amends an earlier one in such a way as to incorporate itself, or a part of itself, into the earlier, then the earlier Act must thereafter to be read and construed in such a way that there is no need to refer to the amending Act. It has been held thus: “The Rule is that when a subsequent Act amends an earlier one in such a way as to incorporate itself, or a part of itself, into the earlier, then the earlier Act must thereafter be read and construed (except where that would lead to a repugnancy, inconsistency or absurdity) as if the altered words had been written into the earlier Act with pen and ink and the old words scored out so that thereafter there is no need to refer to the amending Act at all.” (underlining is by me) It is clear that the Court has made an exception to the application of the aforesaid principle in certain circumstances. The Court has held that when Act is amended by a subsequent Act, the amended Act leads to repugnancy, inconsistency and absurdity, the principles stated therein have no application. In Shri Ram Narain Vs. The Simla Banking and Industrial Co. Ltd – AIR 1956 SC 614 , the Apex Court after considering Shamarao V. Parulekar’s case (supra) has held as under: “Now there is no question about the correctness of this dictum. But it appears to us that it has no application to this case. It is perfectly true as stated therein that whenever an amended Act has to be applied subsequent to the date of the amendment the various unamended provisions of the Act have to be read along with the amended provisions as though they are part of it. This is for the purpose of determining what the meaning of any particular provision of the Act as amended is, whether it is in the unamended part or in the amended part. This is for the purpose of determining what the meaning of any particular provision of the Act as amended is, whether it is in the unamended part or in the amended part. But this is not the same thing as saying that the amendment itself must be taken to have been in existence as from the date of the earlier Act. That would be imputing to the amendment retrospective operation which could only be done if such retrospective operation is given by the amending Act either expressly or by necessary implication. ……….” (underlining is by me) In Bhagat Ram Sharma Vs. Union of India and Others – AIR 1988 SC 740 , the Apex court has held that an amendment of substantive law is not retrospective unless expressly laid down or by necessary implication inferred. In Union of India and Others Vs. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama – AIR 1990 SC 981 , the Apex Court has held that the paramount object in statutory interpretation is to discover what the legislature intended. This intention is primarily to be ascertained from the text of enactment in question. That does not mean the text is to be construed merely as a piece of prose, without reference to its nature of purpose. A Statute is neither a literary text nor a devine revelation. It is further held that if there is obvious anomaly in the application of law, the Court could shape the law to remove the anomaly. If the strict grammatical interpretation gives rise to absurdity or inconsistency, the Court could discard such interpretation and adopt an interpretation, which will give effect to the purpose of legislation. In K.S. Paripoornan Vs. State of Kerala and Others – AIR 1995 SC 1012 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a Statute dealing with substantive rights differs from a Statute which relates to procedure or evidence or is declaratory in nature in as much as while a Statute is prima facie prospective, unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect, a Statute concerned mainly with matters of procedure or evidence or which is declaratory in nature has to be construed as retrospective unless there is a clear indication that such was not the intention of the Legislation. 15. 15. As noticed above, sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of the notification dated 17.9.2008 makes it clear that the amendment comes into effect from the date of its publication in the gazette. The amendment does not state that it is retrospective nor can we infer from the language employed therein that it has retrospective application. It is no doubt true that the words ‘58 years’ under rule 18(2) has been substituted by the words ’60 years’. Therefore, the question is since the words ‘58 years’ has been substituted by the words ‘60 years’, whether the said amendment has retrospective effect? In order to answer this question, we have to examine the intention of the Legislature while amending the rule in question. Learned HCGP has produced the records relating to the amendment of Rule 18(2). Perusal of the records make it clear that pursuant to the Government order dated 28.7.2008 enhancing the age of retirement of the Government servants, employees of local bodies and the employees of aided educational institutions from 58 to 60 years w.e.f. 17.7.2008, the officers and the employees of the Cooperatives Societies made a representation to enhance their age of retirement to 60 years. On the basis of the said representation, the State Government took steps to enhance the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years. A draft notification dated 28.8.2008 was issued for amending Rule18(2) followed by a notification dated 17.9.2008 issued under Section 129 of the Act amending Rule 18(2). There is absolutely no ambiguity in the notification. It clearly states that the amendment shall come into force on the date of its publication in the official gazette. Sub-section (4) of Section 129 of the Act authorizes the State Government to make Rules retrospectively to carry out the purposes of the Act. However, when such a Rule is made, the reasons for making Rules shall be specified in the statement laid before both the Houses of State legislature. The file produced by the learned HCGP contains the statement laid before the State legislature. The said statement does not indicate that the amendment should be given retrospective effect nor does it assign any reason for its retrospective operation. Thus, it is futile to contend that the Rule has retrospective application. 16. The question may also be examined from a different angle. The said statement does not indicate that the amendment should be given retrospective effect nor does it assign any reason for its retrospective operation. Thus, it is futile to contend that the Rule has retrospective application. 16. The question may also be examined from a different angle. If the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is to be accepted, then it should be held that the amendment has come into force from the date on which Rule 18(2) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules came into force. If that is so, all the employees, who have retired at the age of 58 years prior to the date of amendment to Rule 18(2) are entitled for the monetary benefits for a period of two years. This is not the legislative intent. This interpretation leads to inconsistency and absurdity. It is settled that if the liberal reading of the provision giving retrospectivity produces absurdity and anomalies, the Court can discard such an interpretation and adopt an interpretation, which will give effect to the purpose of legislation. In fact, the Apex Court in Shamarao V. Parulekar’s case (supra has made an exception to the application of the principles stated therein if the amended Act leads to repugnancy, inconsistency and absurdity. 17. There is no merit in these writ petitions and they are accordingly dismissed. No costs.