ORDER : This petition is presented by the State Government challenging the order dated 24.02.2015 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal ('KAT' for short) in A.No.4513/2004 directing the State Government to consider the case of the respondent herein for the benefit which she may be entitled under Rule 247-A-(1) of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules ('the Rules' for short) and to pass appropriate orders thereon. 2. Heard Smt. Veena Hegde, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing on behalf the petitioners and Sri Vittal S. Teli, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The respondent's husband late Chowdappa Motare was a daily wage employee with the Public Works Department. He was absorbed in regular service on 01.07.1985 and retired upon attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.1995 and died on 16.02.1998. The respondent submitted an application for grant of pensionary benefits and the same stood rejected vide communication as per Annexure-A7 dated 19.11.2003 stating that the deceased Chowdappa Motare had not completed 10 years of qualifying service. The said endorsement was challenged by the respondent before the KAT. By the impugned order, after adverting to its earlier judgments, KAT has directed the State Government to consider the case of the respondent under Rule 247-A (1) of the Rules. 4. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that the benefit of the said Rule cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case on two grounds. 5. Firstly that Rule 247-A (1) which reads as "247-A. (1) In case of persons directly recruited after completing the age of 30 years in consonance with or pursuant to the rules of recruitment, through Karnataka Public Service Commission or other recruiting authorities, there shall be added to their qualifying service, a period equal to the difference between the age on their date of birth immediately preceding the date of direct recruitment and thirty years, subject to a maximum of two years." is applicable only to such employees who are 'directly' recruited after completing the age of 30 years whereas, in the instant case, the deceased was not directly appointed to the post but absorbed under a policy. 6. Secondly, that by the impugned order, KAT has upheld the legality and correctness of the endorsement dated 19.11.2003 and having not quashed the said endorsement, the impugned directions against the Government are unsustainable. 7. 6. Secondly, that by the impugned order, KAT has upheld the legality and correctness of the endorsement dated 19.11.2003 and having not quashed the said endorsement, the impugned directions against the Government are unsustainable. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supporting the impugned order submits that Rule 247-A(1) upon which the appellants are placing reliance, is the amended version which came into existence from and after 15.02.2012. He contended the Rule as it stood at the relevant point of time, namely the date of absorption of deceased Chowdappa Motare i.e., 01.07.1985, had clothed the appellant Government with ample power to consider the cases akin to the one of respondent for the benefits which would I flow therefrom. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of this petition. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for the parties. 9. The point that arises for our consideration is; "Whether the amended Rule or the Rule which existed prior to the amendment is applicable to the facts of this case?" 10. It is not in dispute that deceased Chowdappa Motare was initially working as a daily wage employee and was absorbed in regular service on 01.07.1985 and worked till 31.01.1995. The Rule existing as on 31.01.1995 raids as follows: "247-A(1) In the case of persons recruited after completing the age of 30 years in consonance with or pursuant to the rules of recruitment or policy or order of Government applicable to such recruitment, there should be added to their qualifying service, a period equal to the difference between the age on their date of birth immediately preceding the date of recruitment and 30 years, subject to a maximum of. 8 years." (underlining is by us) 11. A careful perusal of the above provision makes it clear that the said Rule is applicable to persons recruited after completing the age of 30 years in consonance with any 'Rule' or 'policy' of the Government. It is relevant to note that the word 'directly' is missing in the Rule as it stood prior to 15.02.2012. It is settled in law that as a result of a repeal, a statute, ceases to exist with effect from the date of-such repeal. It is relevant to note that the word 'directly' is missing in the Rule as it stood prior to 15.02.2012. It is settled in law that as a result of a repeal, a statute, ceases to exist with effect from the date of-such repeal. We may usefully refer to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Mangilal Pindwal reported in (1996)5 SCC 60 , wherein, it held as follows:- "12. This means that as a result of repeal of a statute the statute as repealed ceased to exist with effect from the date of such repeal but the repeal does not affect the previous operation of the law which has been repealed during the period it was operative prior to the date of such repeal." Further, we have perused the notification No.FD 4 SRA 2010, Bangalore, Dated: 15.02.2012 published in the Gazette on the same day. In terms of clause 2 of the said Notification, the Rules namely, the Karnataka Civil Services (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2012 would come into force from the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. Therefore, the Rule as existed prior to 15.2.2012 is applicable in this case. In the circumstances, we see no error in the direction issued by the KAT to consider the case of the respondent under the Rule as it existed prior to 15.02.2012. In the circumstances, petition fails and accordingly, stands rejected without any order as to costs. 12. At this juncture, the learned Government Pleader seeks some time to consider the case of the respondent. 13. Two months' time is granted from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to comply with the directions contained in the impugned order. No costs. Order accordingly.