Common Order 1. Aggrieved over the orders of the first respondent, namely, the Director, Gandhigram Institute of Rural Health and Family Welfare Trust, relieving the petitioners from the services of the Institute on superannuation, the petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions. 2. As the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions is one and the same, these Writ Petitions are taken up together for disposal by a common order. 3. Facts of the case as put forth in the affidavits would run thus: 3.1. The petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.1331 of 2012, viz., F. Nirmalkumar David joined the service of the respondent Institution on 08.06.1981 as Attender. Subsequently, he was re-designated as Peon cum Daftry and is working in the same post till date. He is a permanent staff getting salary in the scale of Rs.4,800-Rs.10,000/- with Grade Pay of Rs.1,300/-. 3.2. The respondent institution is governed by the rules and regulations as applicable to the Government of Tamil Nadu. The post of Attender is a category, which comes under the Tamil Nadu Basic service, so also the category of Peons. The employees working in the basic service gets superannuation on attaining the age of 60 years. Even as per the fundamental rule, the age for retirement on superannuation is 60 years. Obviously, the service condition governing the petitioner's employment so far as the retirement is concerned, is 60 years. Any retirement prior to 60 years is illegal and cannot be sustained as it is premature. Admittedly, the retirement age of the basic servant like that of the petitioner working as Peon cum Daftry in the respondent Institution is only 60 years and not 58 years. 3.3. Now, the petitioner is informed orally by the respondent that he has to retire on 31.01.2012, as he completes 58 years on that date. Further, it was informed that a list was issued in this regard and when the said list was verified by the petitioner, it was found that the respondent has issued the list dated 'nil', wherein, the list of employees were mentioned as employees due to retire within next 5 years. The petitioner's name was included in Serial No.7, indicating his date of retirement as 31.01.2012, which is legally wrong. The petitioner was born on 20.01.1954 and as such, he attains superannuation only on 20.01.2014 and that he cannot retire prior to that date. 3.4. The petitioner's name was included in Serial No.7, indicating his date of retirement as 31.01.2012, which is legally wrong. The petitioner was born on 20.01.1954 and as such, he attains superannuation only on 20.01.2014 and that he cannot retire prior to that date. 3.4. The petitioner is a non-teaching staff and as such, he is governed by Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short 'I.D. Act'). Service Conditions cannot be altered without serving a notice on the employee. Admittedly, no notice was served on the petitioner by the respondent informing him that the respondent was intending to change the service condition, viz., the retirement age from 60 years to 58 years. Hence, it is a case of statutory violation. Notice under Section 9A of the I.D. Act is a mandatory provision and it is a statutory notice and that the change in the retirement age cannot be effected without giving an opportunity to him and it will cause an adverse effect. The petitioner is entitled to continue in service even after the completion of 58 years as no notice under Section 9A of the I.D. Act was issued to him. 3.5. By reducing the age of retirement from 60 to 58 years, the respondent Institute wants to open the door for recruitment to the vacancy caused by the amendment to Clause 16 of Service Rules, 2003. So, it is nothing but a fraud on the provision and abuse of process of law and such an amendment cannot be sustained. It cannot also be enforced for effecting retirement on completion of 58 years, thereby denying the guarantee of working for two more years, which is in flagrant violation of Article 21. A classification issued regarding the amendment is that there shall be a uniform age of retirement. Each category is different from one another in various aspects and it is because of that, in every Institute, the retirement age varies from category to category and the respondent Institute cannot be an exception to it and when there is no reason to achieve anything by the amendment, it can be allowed with the present system. 3.6. Hence, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.832 of 2012 before this Court and the same was posted for orders on 31.01.2012. 3.6. Hence, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.832 of 2012 before this Court and the same was posted for orders on 31.01.2012. The respondent filed a typed set and submitted that the Rule was amended and the said amendment was not challenged by the petitioner. After hearing both sides, the matter was posted to another date for filing counter and further, it was stated that everything is subject to the outcome of the writ petition. Taking advantage of the position, the respondent served the impugned relieving order dated 31.01.2012 stating that the petitioner, who is working as Peon cum Daftry is relieved from the services of the Institute on superannuation on 31.01.2012 A.N. The petitioner states that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the very amendment suffers from inherent illegality. Under the said circumstances, having no other alternative, the petitioner has approached this court. 3.7. The petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.5513 of 2011, viz., S. Gopal joined the service of the respondent Institution as a Watchman and promoted as Attender in 1999 and has been working as Attender in the respondent Institution till date. He has completed 30 years of service in the respondent Institution and has been in continuous service till date. The respondents are governed by the Rules and Regulations applicable to the Government of Tamil Nadu and the post of Attender is a category coming under the Tamil Nadu Basic Service. The employees working in the basic service gets superannuation on attaining the age of 60 years. Even as per the Fundamental Rule, the age for retirement on superannuation is 60 years. In the impugned list issued by the 1st respondent dated 'nil', in the list of employees who are due to retire within next five years, the petitioner's name is included in S.No.21, showing 30.06.2011 as the date of retirement. The petitioner's date of birth is 01.06.1953 and hence, he has to retire only on 30.06.2013. Any retirement order prior to 30.06.2013 is exfacie illegal and contrary to rules and hence, retirement cannot be enforced with effect from 30.06.2011 as per the impugned list of employees retirement date. The petitioner is entitled to be in service till the end of 30.06.2013, the date on which the petitioner gets superannuation on completing 60 years of age. Any retirement order prior to 30.06.2013 is exfacie illegal and contrary to rules and hence, retirement cannot be enforced with effect from 30.06.2011 as per the impugned list of employees retirement date. The petitioner is entitled to be in service till the end of 30.06.2013, the date on which the petitioner gets superannuation on completing 60 years of age. The 2nd respondent informed the petitioner in his letter dated 29.04.2011 that the petitioner has to retire on 31.05.2011 which is quite contrary to the information announced in the impugned Letter dated 'nil'. Having no other alternative, the petitioner S.Gopal has approached this Court. 4. The Director of Gandhigram Institute of Rural Health and Family Welfare Trust, Dindigul District has filed counter affidavit. According to him, the averments of the petitioner viz., F.Nirmal Kumar David that he was working as a Peon cum Daftry on a scale of pay of Rs.4,800-Rs.10,000/-, that he joined the service on 08.06.1981, that their institution is governed by rules and regulations as applicable to the Government of Tamil Nadu, that the post of attender as a category coming under the Tamil Nadu Basic Service, that the employees working in the basic service are superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years and that even as per fundamental rules, the retirement age is 60 years and that any retirement prior to 60 years are illegal and unsustainable. 4.1. The respondent denies that the retirement age of basic servant like that of the above petitioner in the respondent Institution is only 60 years and not 58 years and that the petitioner was orally informed by the respondent that he has to retire on 31.01.2012, as he has completed 58 years on that date. He was further informed that a list was issued in this regard and that he verified the same and came to know a few days back that the list was issued without any date and the present list of retirement of employees mentioning that the petitioner has to retire on 31.01.2012 is legally wrong. The averment that the petitioner was born on 20.01.1954 and that he would attain superannuation only on 20.01.2014 and could not be retired earlier, is incorrect and misleading. 4.2. The averment that the petitioner was born on 20.01.1954 and that he would attain superannuation only on 20.01.2014 and could not be retired earlier, is incorrect and misleading. 4.2. According to the respondent, the petitioner was working as a temporary staff on consolidated salary for many years and that he was given appointment in the time scale of pay under Government grant only on 01.07.2008. The service rules of the respondent Institution was amended as early as on 12.04.2006. The averment that the petitioner was orally informed that he is to be retired on 31.01.2012 only, recently, is meaningless. The amended service rules was also put in notice board and each and every staff were fully aware of the service rules. In the above circumstances, the petitioner cannot claim ignorance of amendment of service rules. 4.3. The respondent further denies the allegation of the petitioner that taking advantage of the adjournment of W.P.(MD) No.832 of 2012, the respondent served the impugned relieving order on 31.01.2012 stating that the petitioner was relieved from his service of the Institute and that the impugned relieving order is not sustainable in law, as incorrect and misleading. The respondent would state that W.P.(MD) No.832 of 2012 was posted on 31.01.2012 for orders and the counsel for the respondent appeared before this Court. On the said date, the learned counsel for the petitioner had insisted for interim stay of the impugned list of retired employees dated 'nil'. This Court declined to grant an interim order in favour of the petitioner on 31.01.2012. As per the Rules of the Institute, all the employees who have attained the age of 58 years are to be superannuated and the impugned relieving order was passed on 31.01.2012 as per the said Rule and the petitioner was relieved, in which there is no illegality. 4.4. The respondent Institution is a Trust administered according to the deed of Trust and the Board of Trustees are empowered to alter the service condition. The respondent Institution is not governed by the Rules and Regulations applicable to Government Servants. The Institution has got every right to have its own Service Rules. In such circumstances, the repeated allegations that the retirement age of the petitioner will be 60 years according to the Fundamental Rules and Regulations of the Government of Tamil Nadu are meaningless. The respondent Institution is not governed by the Rules and Regulations applicable to Government Servants. The Institution has got every right to have its own Service Rules. In such circumstances, the repeated allegations that the retirement age of the petitioner will be 60 years according to the Fundamental Rules and Regulations of the Government of Tamil Nadu are meaningless. The respondent Institution gets grants from the Government of India and pays only the salary and allowances to its employees on par with the State Government norms. The other benefits given to the State Government employees like Pension, Government Provident Fund, etc are not granted to the employees of the respondent Institution by the Central/State Government. As such, all the benefits extended to the Central/State Government employees are not given to the employees of the respondent Institution. As per the duly amended service rule of the respondent Institution, the petitioner is to retire on 31.01.2012 and as such, he retired on 31.01.2012. 4.5. The averment that the petitioners are governed by Section 9(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the service conditions cannot be altered without serving a notice on the employees and that admittedly, no notice was served on the petitioners regarding the change in the service condition and that it is a case of statutory violation is invalid. The petitioners have got no effective remedy except to move this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that the retirement age of 60 years cannot be changed unilaterally. 4.6. The respondent would submit that the provisions of the I.D. Act is not applicable to the case on hand, and if at all the provisions of the I.D. Act is applicable to the petitioners, then there are separate forums established under law to adjudicate the grievances of the petitioners and that they cannot directly approach this Court. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to question the Service Rules after a lapse of five years. 4.7. The service conditions cannot be altered without applying the mandatory provisions of Section 9-A of the I.D. Act and that the respondent Institution cannot be exempted from following the mandatory provision under the guise of uniformity and that the reasoning given for the amendment is misnomer. 4.7. The service conditions cannot be altered without applying the mandatory provisions of Section 9-A of the I.D. Act and that the respondent Institution cannot be exempted from following the mandatory provision under the guise of uniformity and that the reasoning given for the amendment is misnomer. The amendment is a violation of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and that the amendment of Service Rules, dated 02.12.2011, Clause 16 of the Recruitment Rules, 2003 of the Service Rules reframed with effect from 01.04.2006 have to be quashed, are all misleading and incorrect. There was no amendment to the Service Rules whatsoever on 02.12.2011. 4.8. The petitioner has got full knowledge about his retirement age. In fact, he has given a letter on 23.11.2011 requesting that he has to be issued a separate order for continuing in employment for a further period of 2 years. In the above circumstances, the petitioner cannot claim total ignorance about the age of retirement. Based on Clause 16 of the Service Rules, the petitioner retired from service and the relieving order passed on 31.01.2012 is perfectly valid and legal and that the petitioner cannot claim reinstatement or to work till the completion of 60 years of age. Hence, the respondent submits that the Writ Petition is totally misconceived and is liable to be dismissed with costs. 5. Mr. K. Vellaichamy, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners viz., F. Nirmal Kumar David and S. Gopal are non-teaching staff working as Peon cum Daftry and Attender, respectively, in the respondent Institution and they are governed by Section 9A of the I.D. Act. It is his contention that reducing their retirement age from 60 to 58 is nothing but alteration of service condition, which cannot be done without complying with the mandatory provision of Section 9A of the I.D. Act. 5a. In support of his stand, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on a decision reported in (2009) 3 MLJ 774 in the case of S. Sendhilkumarand others vs. Shri Angalamman College of Engineering and Technology, Tiruchirappalli District, wherein, it is held thus: "10. ... Here for imparting education, even non-teaching staff in the College are also doing some job. In the absence of non-teaching staff, the institution cannot run. ... Here for imparting education, even non-teaching staff in the College are also doing some job. In the absence of non-teaching staff, the institution cannot run. Therefore, as a whole, the institution should be held to be as one unit, which discharges its public duty of imparting education to the students. Therefore, there cannot be any distinction between teaching and non-teaching staff, while applying Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners in K. Krishnamacharyulu vs. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering (supra) case were also non-teaching staff. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even in respect of non-teaching staff, the writ remedy is available to them. For all the above reasons, I hold that the present Writ Petition is maintainable against the respondent. 6. On the contrary, Mr. M. Mariappan, learned counsel for the respondent/Institution, would submit that the Writ Petition is not maintainable; the Institution is a Trust administered according to the deed of Trust and the Board of Trustees are empowered to alter the service conditions; it is not governed by the Rules and Regulations applicable to Government Servants; it has got every right to have its own Service Rules; the action of the institution in making the petitioners retire at the age of 58 is as per the rules and, hence, the impugned orders cannot be faulted with. He would further submit that the respondent Institute is getting grants from the Government of India and pays only the salary and allowances to its employees on par with the State Government norms and that other benefits given to the State Government employees such as Pension, GPF, etc. are not granted to the employees of the respondent Institution by the Central/State Government. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records. 8.An analysis of the case would reveal that two of the employees of Gandhigram Institute of Rural Health and Family Welfare Trust (in short 'Institute') have come before this Court challenging Clause 16 of the Service Rules, 2003 (re-framed with effect from 01.04.2006), questioning the retirement age fixed by the respondent Institute and also the consequential proceedings issued by respondents 1 and 2 vide proceedings dated 29.04.2011 and 31.01.2012, respectively, seeking to quash the same and for a consequential direction to allow them to continue in service upto 60 years of age. 9. 9. The main thrust of challenge to the rules are, by reducing the age of retirement from 60 to 58 years, the respondent Institute wants to open the door for recruitment to the vacancy caused by the amendment. So, it is nothing but a fraud on the provision and abuse of process of law and such an amendment cannot be sustained. It cannot be enforced for effecting retirement on completion of 58 years, thereby denying the guarantee of working for two more years, which is in flagrant violation of Article 21. A classification issued regarding the amendment is that there shall be a uniform age of retirement and it is a misnomer. Each category is different from one another in various aspects and it is because of that, in every Institute, the retirement age varies from category to category and the respondent Institute cannot be an exception to it and when there is no reason to achieve anything by the amendment, it can be allowed with the present system. 10. Further, it is assailed that by virtue of the amendment, the accrued right to continue in service is surreptitiously stolen. To avoid such a situation, Section 9-A was introduced in the I.D. Act. Therefore, the amendment is the outcome of malafide. When there was a rule which allowed an employee to retire at the age of 60 years, any change in it is null and void and cannot be interfered. The ground which is specifically averred by the petitioners is that they are non-teaching staff working as Peon-cum-Daftry and Attender, respectively in the respondent Institute and therefore they are workmen governed by Section 9-A of the Act. Reducing the retirement age from 60 to 58 years is nothing but alteration of service condition, which cannot be done without complying with the mandatory provision of Section 9-A of the I.D. Act. Therefore, non-compliance of the mandatory provision under Section 9-A of the I.D. Act renders the very amendment as null and void, abinitio and made it non-est. The original rule of retirement at 60 years of age is based on the wisdom of the Government, which from time to time frames rules and regulations besides enacting various acts. Therefore, the amendment is based on malafide and unreasonableness besides arbitrary and such an amendment cannot take way the petitioners' right to continue in service till they complete 60 years of age. 11. Therefore, the amendment is based on malafide and unreasonableness besides arbitrary and such an amendment cannot take way the petitioners' right to continue in service till they complete 60 years of age. 11. The respondent Institute took a plea of rebuttal that either of the petitioners, who is now working as a Peon cum Daftry on a scale of pay of Rs.4,800-Rs.10,000/-, joined in the service on 08.06.1981. They deny that the respondent Institute is governed by Rules and Regulations as applicable to the Government of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the post of Attender does not come under the purview of Tamil Nadu Basic Service and he is not entitled to claim the age of retirement as 60 years. The respondent took a strong plea that the retirement age of the petitioners is only 58 years and not 60 years as claimed by them. Accordingly, the list was issued. Therefore, their claim for retirement up to the age of 60 years is not correct. According to the respondent, the petitioners are temporary staff on a consolidated pay for many years and they were given appointment on the Government grant only on 01.07.2008. The Service Rules of the respondent Institute was amended as early as on 12.04.2006, which has brought down the retirement age from 60 to 58 years. The said amended rules was put in notice board and each and every staff were fully aware of the Service Rules. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim ignorance of amendment of Service Rules. 12. The plea of the respondent is that their Institution is a Trust administered according to the Deed of Trust and the Board of Trustees are empowered to alter the service conditions and they are not governed by the Rules and Regulations applicable to Government Servants. According to the respondent, the Institute has got every right to have its own service rules. Therefore, the repeated claim of the petitioners to superannuate them only at 60 years according to the Fundamental Rules and Regulations of the Government of Tamil Nadu are meaningless. The Government of India gives salary grant only to the respondent Institution. The salary and allowances are alone paid to the employees on par with the Tamil Nadu State Government norms. The other benefits given to the State Government employees, viz., pension, GPF, etc are not granted to the employees of the respondent Institution. The Government of India gives salary grant only to the respondent Institution. The salary and allowances are alone paid to the employees on par with the Tamil Nadu State Government norms. The other benefits given to the State Government employees, viz., pension, GPF, etc are not granted to the employees of the respondent Institution. As such, all the benefits extended to the State Government employees are not given to the employees of the respondent Institution. Therefore, the respondent would state that as per the duly amended service rule, the petitioners have to retire on attaining the age of 58 years and accordingly, they have also retired. They also denied the claim of the petitioners that there must be a notice before altering the service conditions under Section 9-A of the I.D. Act. According to the respondent, it is not correct to state that the amendment is in violation of Article 12 of the Constitution. The amendment of Service Rules under Clause 16 of the Recruitment Rules reframed with effect from 01.04.2006 are within their powers. Therefore, according to the respondent, the writ petition is devoid of merits. 13. On considering the above, the questions that arise for consideration are as follows : (i) Whether the writ petition against the respondent Institute is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? (ii) Whether the impugned amendment of clause 16 of the Recruitment rules are valid in law; if so, whether the consequential impugned communications passed by the respondents 1 and 2 are sustainable ? 14. As regards the first question 'whether the writ petition against the respondent Institute is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India', it is seen that the respondent Institute viz., Gandhigram Institute of Rural Health and Family Welfare Trust is a Trust administered by the Board of Trustees. They are getting grants from the Government of India and are applying norms as applicable to the State Government as to the payment of salary and other benefits, but, they do not grant pension, P.F. etc. Though all the benefits are not extended to the employees of the respondent Institute, it is admitted by the respondent in the counter that they are extending benefits viz., salary and other benefits to their employees on par with the State Government. 15. Though all the benefits are not extended to the employees of the respondent Institute, it is admitted by the respondent in the counter that they are extending benefits viz., salary and other benefits to their employees on par with the State Government. 15. Gandhigram Institute is a body with an aim and goal to give equal reverence to all religions and faiths. The Sarvodaya Community Prayer conducted every week reflects the objectives of Gandhigram. The staff of all wings of Gandhigram are expected to participate in the interreligious community prayer every week and set an example. The staff shall observe the spirit of 'Swadeshi', which means 'the encouragement of the products produced by the poor and the deprived population living in the countryside and will constitute mainly khadi and village industries articles. It also aims to see that the employees shall not show any discrimination of either caste or creed or class. Gandhigram stands for the two cardinal principles of Gandhiji, namely, 'Truth' and 'Non-violence'. The practice of Truth and Non-violence is essential for reaching the objectives of Gandhigram. With such a goal, the respondent Institute has conducted various programmes for the benefit of the public and several important dignitaries and distinguished persons have participated in it. 16. Areading of the Prospectus submitted by the respondent Institute would show that they are proceeding with strategies viz., innovative educational technology including problem based learning, task analysis, community based education; amalgamating information generated through health related research; Village orientation to appraise and address rural health problems; programme based training modules; independent and objective assessment of the Reproductive and Child Health and Family Welfare programmes and its impact. While working on the above strategies, the respondent Institute has established the impact of community health education by constructing community toilets and drainage systems in the nearby villages and assessed and established the positive impact of health awareness units on population control programmes. All their strategies emphasize education in health and family welfare in the rural areas through training, research and service programmes. It is acclaimed as the centre for conduct of all National level surveys such as NFHS and RCH survey in the Southern Region. 17. From the factual analysis, it is clear that the respondent Institute is not only imparting educational programmes, but, is also doing programmes on rural health in co-ordination with the Schemes implemented by the Central Government. 18. It is acclaimed as the centre for conduct of all National level surveys such as NFHS and RCH survey in the Southern Region. 17. From the factual analysis, it is clear that the respondent Institute is not only imparting educational programmes, but, is also doing programmes on rural health in co-ordination with the Schemes implemented by the Central Government. 18. When the question of maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arose before the Supreme Court as to the discharge of 'public function' by a private party in the case of BinnyLtd. and another vs. V.Sadasivan and others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 657 , the Supreme Court clearly held as follows : "11.) Judicial review is designed to prevent the cases of abuse of power and neglect of duty by public authorities. However, under our Constitution, Article 226 is couched in such a way that a writ of mandamus could be issued even against a private authority. However, such private authority must be discharging a public function and the decision sought to be corrected or enforced must be in discharge of a public function. The role of the State expanded enormously and attempts have been made to create various agencies to perform the governmental functions. Several corporations and companies have also been formed by the Government to run industries and to carry on trading activities. These have come to be known as public sector undertakings. However, in the interpretation given to Article 12 of the Constitution, this Court took the view that many of these companies and corporations could come within the sweep of Article 12 of the Constitution. At the same time, there are private bodies also which may be discharging public functions. It is difficult to draw a line between public functions and private functions when they are being discharged by a purely private authority. A body is performing a "public function" when it seeks to achieve some collective benefit for the public or a section of the public and is accepted by the public or that section of the public as having authority to do so. Bodies therefore exercise public functions when they intervene or participate in social or economic affairs in the public interest. Bodies therefore exercise public functions when they intervene or participate in social or economic affairs in the public interest. In a book on Judicial Review of Administrative Action (5th Edn.) by de Smith, Woolf & Jowell in Chapter 3, para 0.24, it is stated thus: "A body is performing a 'public function' when it seeks to achieve some collective benefit for the public or a section of the public and is accepted by the public or that section of the public as having authority to do so. Bodies therefore exercise public functions when they intervene or participate in social or economic affairs in the public interest. This may happen in a wide variety of ways. For instance, a body is performing a public function when it provides 'public goods' or other collective services, such as health care, education and personal social services, from funds raised by taxation. A body may perform public functions in the form of adjudicatory services (such as those of the criminal and civil courts and tribunal system). They also do so if they regulate commercial and professional activities to ensure compliance with proper standards. For all these purposes, a range of legal and administrative techniques may be deployed, including rule making, adjudication (and other forms of dispute resolution); inspection; and licensing. Public functions need not be the exclusive domain of the State. Charities, self-regulatory organisations and other nominally private institutions (such as universities, the Stock Exchange, Lloyd's of London churches) may in reality also perform some types of public function. As Sir John Donaldson, M.R. urged, it is important for the courts to 'recognize the realities of executive power' and not allow 'their vision to be clouded by the subtlety and sometimes complexity of the way in which it can be exerted'. Non-governmental bodies such as these are just as capable of abusing their powers as is Government." 19. On reading of the above proposition laid down by the Supreme Court, it is clear that the respondent Institute, which is doing public functions, have received grants from the Central Government, pays salary and other benefits to its employees, imparts education in Professional courses and cares the health of the rural public by servicing them at their doorstep. A body performing duties towards the public is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A body performing duties towards the public is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Looking into the materials placed before this Court and analysing the various programmes conducted by the respondent Institute with an avowed object of public intention, undoubtedly, the respondent Institute is a body performing public functions. Therefore, this writ petition against the respondent Institute is maintainable. Accordingly, the first question raised in this matter is answered. 20. As regards the second question 'whether the impugned amendment of clause 16 of the Recruitment Rules are valid in law', it is seen that the respondent Institute is a Trust administered by the Board of Trustees and they have framed the service rules. Later on, the service rules were re-framed and approved by the Board of Trustees in the meeting held on 04th January 2003. The material documents placed before this Court would reveal that a set of Service Rules were framed soon after the formation of the Gandhigram Institute of Rural Health and Family Welfare Trust to enable the Institute to regulate the appointment and service conditions of its employees and it is considered necessary and expedient to re-issue a comprehensive set of rules, incorporating all the amendments and changes made up-to-date. Therefore, the Board of Trustees, in supersession of the Service Rules approved by its at its meeting held on 22nd February 1984, made the following Rules governing the service conditions of its employees. Part-I : Recruitment Rules Part-II : Discipline and Appeal Rules Part-III : Leave Rules Part-IV : Conduct Rules Part-V : Miscellaneous Rules The said Rules came into force on and from 04.01.2003, the date of its approval by the Board of Trustees. 21. Part-I : Recruitment Rules Part-II : Discipline and Appeal Rules Part-III : Leave Rules Part-IV : Conduct Rules Part-V : Miscellaneous Rules The said Rules came into force on and from 04.01.2003, the date of its approval by the Board of Trustees. 21. Clause 16 of the Service Rules, 2003 pertaining to the 'Age of Retirement of its Employees ' would read thus: "Every employee shall retire on attaining the age of 58 (fifty eight) years or as fixed by the Government of Tamil Nadu from time to time." Clause 19 of the Service Rules, 2003 pertaining to the 'Application of Fundamental Rules, etc.' would read thus: "The provisions of Fundamental Rules, Manual of Special Pay and Allowances, Tamil Nadu Leave Rules as amended from time to time in so far as they may be applicable and except to the extent expressly provided in these rules shall mutate mutandis apply to the staff members of the Institute in the matter of their pay, allowances, travelling allowance, leave, leave salary and other conditions of service. The powers assigned to the Government or other authorities in the said rules shall be exercisable by the Institute or any other authority of the Institute to whom the Board of Trustees may delegate its powers." 22. In the 45th meeting of the Board of Trustees held on 12.04.2006, an agenda was placed before it for approval in Item No.14 pertaining to the reframing of amendment in Institute Service Rules, which would read thus: The Clause 16 of the Recruitment Rules, 2003 of the Service Rules (Reframed) is requested to be amended as below: Existing as per Service Rules (Reframed) Approved by the BOT in 34th meeting held on 04.01.2003 Every employee shall retire on attaining the age of 58 years (fifty eight) years or as fixed by the Government of Tamil Nadu from time to time. Proposed Amendment Every employee shall retire on attaining the age of 58 (fifty eight) years. Three class IV staff in permanent grant are retiring this year 2006-2007. Placing three class IV staff (paid by Institute Fund) against these retired vacancies will reduce the financial burden of the Institute. 22a. On 19.04.2006, the respondent Institute took a Resolution in amending Clause 16 of the Recruitment Rules, 2003 in respect of the age of retirement. Three class IV staff in permanent grant are retiring this year 2006-2007. Placing three class IV staff (paid by Institute Fund) against these retired vacancies will reduce the financial burden of the Institute. 22a. On 19.04.2006, the respondent Institute took a Resolution in amending Clause 16 of the Recruitment Rules, 2003 in respect of the age of retirement. Existing as per Service Rules (Reframed) Amended as per the approval of the Approved by the BOT in 34th meeting held BOT in the 4th meeting held on on 04.01.2003 12.04.2006 Every employee shall retire on attaining the age Every employee shall retire on attaining of 58 years (fifty eight) years or as fixed by the the age of 58 (fifty eight) years. Government of Tamil Nadu from time to time. The above amendment comes into force w.e.f. 01.04.2006. 23. From a reading of the above Rules, it is clear that the Recruitment Rules reframed in the year 2003 would clearly give a mandate that every employee shall retire on attaining the age of 58 years or as fixed by the Government of Tamil Nadu from time to time. But, now, the amendment made with effect from 01.04.2006 as per the Resolution of the meeting held on 19.04.2006 would indicate that every employee shall retire on attaining the age of 58 years. To elucidate, the old as well as the new amendments made in the Service Rules, which are made applicable by the Government of Tamil Nadu to the respondent Institute from time to time have been deleted from the existing Service Rules of the Institute, thereby taking away the rights guaranteed under Clause 19 of the Service Rules, 2003, which clearly provides that the application of Fundamental Rules to the staff and members of the respondent Institute in the matters of their pay, allowances, travelling allowance, leave, leave salary and other conditions of service. It is also made clear that the powers assigned to the Government or other authorities in the said rules shall be exercisable by the Institute or any other authority of the Institute to whom the Board of Trustees may delegate its powers. It is also made clear that the powers assigned to the Government or other authorities in the said rules shall be exercisable by the Institute or any other authority of the Institute to whom the Board of Trustees may delegate its powers. Therefore, it is manifestly clear that the deletion of the Rules is to the effect that every employee shall retire on attaining the age of 58 years or as fixed by the Government of Tamil Nadu from time to time, which as per Section 56(1)(a) of the Fundamental Rules is 60 years, as has been extended to the employees of the respondent Institute till the amendment was made. 24. To illustrate the above position, it is relevant to see the provision under Section 56(1)(a) of the Fundamental Rules, as extracted below: "56.(1)(a) Retirement on Superannuation : (a) Every Government servant in the superior service shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty-eight years. He shall not be retained in service after that age except with the sanction of the Government on public grounds, which must be recorded in writing but he shall not be retained after the age of sixty years except in very special circumstances. Provided that this clause shall not apply to Government servants who are treated as in superior service for the purpose of these rules but as in the Tamil Nadu Basic Service for the purpose of pension. Such Government servants as well as basic servants shall retire on attaining the age of sixty years." 25. A close reading of the above provision would reveal that in the case of retirement of Tamil Nadu Basic Servants on attaining the age of 60 years, Clause 19 of the Service Rules mandate the application of the Fundamental Rules to the respondent Institute in matters of pay, allowances, travelling allowance, leave, leave salary and other conditions of service. Therefore, it could be construed that the retirement age is the condition of service and if that is so, it is incumbent on the respondent Institute to follow the mandate which they have accepted and adopted in their Service Rules. Therefore, it could be construed that the retirement age is the condition of service and if that is so, it is incumbent on the respondent Institute to follow the mandate which they have accepted and adopted in their Service Rules. It is not proper for them to estop from making such a statement that they are not bound to follow the Fundamental Rule sand the Rules and Regulations of the Government of Tamil Nadu as long as Clause 19 of the Service Rules is in existence and continues to be in force. 26. Earlier, one of the employees working with the respondent Department filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.14002 of 2010 praying for a similar relief as that of the one in the present case and this Court, by an order dated 29.11.2010, passed the following order : "7.) In fact, Rule 19 itself shows the fundamental rules shall apply 'mutadis mutandis' the pay allowances and other conditions of service. In the present case, the board has now made a clarification that there shall be uniform age of retirement and there is no challenge to such Writ petition. Therefore, the present attempt made by the petitioner to get a Court order to continue in service is clear impermissible and this Court is not inclined to entertain such a Writ petition. Hence, the Writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed." From the above, it is clear that the said writ petition was dismissed holding that Rule 19 itself shows the Fundamental Rules shall apply mutatis mutandis the pay allowances and other conditions for service. It was also observed therein the Board has now made a clarification that there shall be uniform age of retirement and there is no challenge to such Rule. 27. It is true that the respondent Institute is a Trust governed by the Board of Trustees and they have framed their own rules as far as the power to amend the rules within their domain. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Rules amended by the respondent is in no way violative of the powers granted to the Board of Trustees or it is made by the incompetent body or in contravention of the provision of the law. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Rules amended by the respondent is in no way violative of the powers granted to the Board of Trustees or it is made by the incompetent body or in contravention of the provision of the law. If that is so, clause 16 of the Service Rules, 2003 provides that every employee shall retire on attaining the age of 58 years or as fixed by the Government of Tamil Nadu from time to time. But, the respondent Institute has mandatorily followed the age of superannuation for basic services as 60 years till the amendment was made. 28. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that there was an Agenda in Item No.14 as to the amendment of Institute Service Rules and a proposal was placed before the competent body viz., the Board of Trustees in the 45th meeting held on 12.04.2006 and the same was approved on 19.04.2006 that the said amendment will take effect from 01.04.2006. In the absence of any illegality or irrationality, when the amended rules is within the domain of the respondent Institute, the petitioner has no manner of right to question the power of the Institute in amending the rules, unless it is contrary to the rule of law. 29. In this case, though it is alleged by the petitioner that the impugned amendment made by the respondent Institute is malafide with an intention to recruit persons of their own choice, in the absence of any material proof before this court, the mere statement of allegation without material evidence or proof could be in nullity and cannot be acceptable in assailing the amendment. But, one question that arises for consideration is that by virtue of the amendment whether the petitioners' right have been taken away or not. 30. A circumspection of the material facts would reveal that the petitioners entered the service of the respondent Institute in the year 1981 as Watchman and Peon, respectively and they have been regularized later on. They come under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Basic Services and have been allowed to continue in service for quite a considerable period, to say, more than 30 years and benefits have been extended to them as per the Government norms. They come under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Basic Services and have been allowed to continue in service for quite a considerable period, to say, more than 30 years and benefits have been extended to them as per the Government norms. The benefit of the Service Rules, as it then was, has to be extended to the petitioners even though the amendment has been made with effect from 01.04.2006. If the amendment is intended to deprive the petitioners by regularising their service from 2008, then it will deprive them their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India and their right to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Deleting the provision would give a clear impression to this court that the Institute is intended to deprive the petitioners from getting the benefits of retirement upto 60 years of age, as it was available to them as per the Service Rules, 2003. If that is so, there is no iota of doubt that the amendment intended to the parties is definitely a clear case of malafide. 31. Moreover, it should also be taken note of that amendment to Clause 16 of the Service Rules, 2003, which came into effect from 01.04.2006 will have a prospective effect and it could be applicable to the staff who have joined the service of the Institute after the amendment. Therefore, this amendment could not be given effect to the petitioners' case and they are entitled to continue in service up to 60 years in view of the provision under Section 56(1)(a) of the Fundamental Rules. Though the respondent Institute has taken a stand that they had the benefit of Government grant from 01.07.2008, it is not disputed that they have joined the service in the year 1981 and they have been promoted as Peon-cum-Daftry and Attender respectively. 32. It is not in dispute that the respondent institute is receiving grants from the Central Government and they have also framed the rules. In Clause 19, it is specifically provided about the application of the Fundamental Rules to the employees of the institute with regard to pay, allowances, travelling allowance, leave salary and other conditions of service, which they have adopted and accepted and applied since 2003. In Clause 19, it is specifically provided about the application of the Fundamental Rules to the employees of the institute with regard to pay, allowances, travelling allowance, leave salary and other conditions of service, which they have adopted and accepted and applied since 2003. All in a sudden, they have made an attempt to delete a portion in Clause 16 or "as fixed by the Government of Tamil Nadu from time to time". As long as the application of Fundamental Rules under 56 (1) (a) to the employees of the respondent institute which they have also implemented so long and allowing the basic servants to retire at the age of 60 years, with an ulterior motive and with a clear intention to deprive the employees, by bringing down the retirement age from 60 to 58 years, they have not stated for what reasons the deletion has been effected while amending the rules. 33. A perusal of the records and the materials placed before this Court would clearly indicate that though they have power to amend the rules and they have done the same within the ambit of the rules and regulations, the reasons for amendment have not been disclosed. The only reason they have stated to amend the rule is, to achieve the uniformity. The basic servants enter the Government or any institute governed by the rules and they continue to be in service till the age of 60 years. Therefore, Rule 56 (1) (a) of the Fundamental Rules contemplates that the said clause shall not apply to Government servants who are treated as in superior service for the purpose of the said rule as in the Tamil Nadu Basic Service for the purpose of pension. Such Government servants as well as all basic servants shall retire on attaining the age of 60 years. Such an object of the legislative intention to give the benefits to basic servants cannot be taken away by the respondent institute in an arbitrary manner and with a mala fide intention to deprive the petitioners to continue in service till 60 years. 34. Such an object of the legislative intention to give the benefits to basic servants cannot be taken away by the respondent institute in an arbitrary manner and with a mala fide intention to deprive the petitioners to continue in service till 60 years. 34. Law is well settled that a legislation can be challenged when there is (a) lack of legislative competence to make it; (b) violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India; (c) violation of any provision of the Constitution of India; (d) failure to conform to the statute under which it is made or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act; (e) repugnancy to the laws of the land, that is, any enactment and (f) manifest arbitrariness/unreasonableness. The Court, considering the validity of a legislation, will have to consider the nature, object and scheme of the enabling Act, and also the area over which power has been delegated under the Act and then decide whether the legislation conforms to the parent statute. Where a rule is directly inconsistent with a mandatory provision of the statute, then, of course, the task of the court is simple and easy. 35. In this case, the Fundamental Rules of Tamil Nadu Government particularly Rule 56 (1) (a) stipulates as to what benefit is extended to the basic servants of the Tamil Nadu Government and the application of the same has been incorporated in Clause 19 of the Service Rules,2003, of the respondent institute. When the statute provides certain rights, if the authority fails to conform to the said statute exceeding the limits of the authority conferred by the enabling Act thereby making a clause for deletion of particular rights conferred under the statute, on such deletion being challenged, it is the duty of the Court to examine the nature, object and scheme of the enabling Act and also the area over which power has been conferred under the Act and then decide whether the legislation conforms to the parent statute, as held by the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy, (2006) 4 SCC 517 . In the case on hand, it is conspicuous that when the Fundamental Rules contemplate certain rights to be conferred upon the employees and the same have been adopted and accepted by the respondent institute in its rules, such rules confer the same rights on the petitioners and, under the guise of achieving uniformity among the employees, the respondent institute cannot delete the vested rights already conferred on the petitioners by the parent statute, by making an amendment to the existing rules. Hence, the rights conferred under the parent law, namely, Fundamental Rules, which are also incorporated in the Service Rules of the respondent institute, shall not be taken away, by way of an amendment. It is a well settled legal proposition in P.D. Aggarwal v. State of U.P., (1987) 3 SCC 622 , that vested rights cannot be taken away by a retrospective amendment of statute. In the case on hand, though it is indicated that the amendment will take effect from 01.04.2006, in effect, it is with an object to give a retrospective effect thereby depriving the petitioners right. Therefore, the intention of the respondent institute is clear that the amendment shall have the effect on the petitioners retrospectively. 36. One more contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that before making any alteration in the conditions of service, even assuming that the petitioners are governed by Industrial Disputes Act, the respondent must follow the procedure contemplated under the law. It is his specific averment that under Section 9-A of the Act, there must be an opportunity of hearing before altering the conditions of service. On a perusal of the entire records, it is conspicuous that there was no such opportunity before making such an amendment. Therefore, on this score also, the respondent institute has committed an error. 37. An indepth study of all the materials placed before this Court gives a clear impression that the deletion of a portion in Clause 16 of the Service Rules, 2003, is arbitrary, ultra vires and made without any reasons. Therefore, the same cannot be held to be valid and is accordingly struck down. 37. An indepth study of all the materials placed before this Court gives a clear impression that the deletion of a portion in Clause 16 of the Service Rules, 2003, is arbitrary, ultra vires and made without any reasons. Therefore, the same cannot be held to be valid and is accordingly struck down. As such, the impugned orders dated 29.04.2011 and 31.01.2012 passed by the respondents 1 and 2 are set aside and the respondents concerned are directed to allow the petitioners to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years with all attendant benefits, which they accrue till the age of superannuation. Writ Petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.