JUDGMENT : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. 1. The petitioner, who retired after attaining the age of superannuation, as Assistant Manager, from the employment of the Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation on 30.11.2012, is before this Court in these two petitions. The grievance in Writ Petition No. 2355 of 2014 is about not releasing the retirement/terminal dues. That petition has been filed on 30.04.2014 i.e. about two years after superannuation. The employer-Corporation filed its reply therein and pointed out that a show cause notice dated 09.12.2011 was served upon the petitioner and thereafter memorandum along with articles of charges was also served upon him on 27.11.2012. As departmental enquiry was going on, the dues could not have been paid. 2. In the light of this disclosure in reply-affidavit, the petitioner filed later petition pointing out that the Service Rules do not empower the employer-Corporation to proceed against the superannuated employee. 3. After hearing the respective Advocates, we find that the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4773 of 2014 had placed reliance upon a judgment dated 31.01.2012 delivered at Principal Seat at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 322 of 2011 (Prakash Krishnaji Jambavdekar vs. Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. & Others), holding that there is no such power with present respondents. That judgment has attained finality. 4. The respondents have come up with defence that they have amended the service rules after the said judgment and specifically the power to proceed departmentally against such employees has been acquired. In the light of that amendment, which has come into force from 21.03.2012, the employer-Corporation has right to proceed against the petitioner who has retired thereafter i.e. on 30.11.2012. 5. The only question debated before this Court in this situation is: Whether said amendment has come into force on 21.03.2012 or then on 26.06.2013 when the Administrative Department issued a memorandum about it. 6. Learned Advocate Shri Patil for the petitioner submits that the date on which the memorandum has been issued by the Administrative Department is the relevant date and therefore the employees who retired either on 26.06.2013 or thereafter only can be subjected to amended rules. 7. According to learned Advocate Shri Kukday for the respondent nos. 6. Learned Advocate Shri Patil for the petitioner submits that the date on which the memorandum has been issued by the Administrative Department is the relevant date and therefore the employees who retired either on 26.06.2013 or thereafter only can be subjected to amended rules. 7. According to learned Advocate Shri Kukday for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, the rule gets amended on the date on which the Board of Directors has passed resolution i.e. on 21.03.2012 and hence prior to retirement of the petitioner the employer had secured to itself the power to proceed against him. 8. The perusal of resolution passed against the Item No. 11 Subject No. 323 shows the proposed amendment to the Employees Service Rules for initiating departmental enquiry against an employee upto period of five years after his retirement/resignation. After discussion, the effective resolution is: “RESOLVED THAT “Approval be and is hereby accorded for amending the ESR to provide for initiating DE against the Employees upto a period of four years after his/her retirement or resignation where the situation so warrants on the lines provided in MCSR.” 9. However, immediately after this, there is further resolution and Managing Director is authorized to incorporate the said rule in Service Rules of Corporation. 10. Thus, the power to add this amendment as part of the Employees’ Service Rules was delegated to the Managing Director by this later part. In exercise of this delegation, the General Manager (Administration) has issued Office Memorandum dated 26.06.2013 on the subject of amendment. This Office Memorandum carries a preamble which very briefly gives history of passing of resolution and then actual fact of moving the proposal in Subject No. 323, Board meeting held on 23.03.2012. The Office Memorandum concludes by observing that: “The Board approved the proposal and the ESR stands amended as follows: “In case of employees retired or resigned from the services of the Corporation, a Departmental Enquiry can be initiated against such employee upto a period of four years after his/her retirement or resignation where the situation so warrants on the lines provided in MCS Rules.” 11. Thus, the General Manager has after pointing out the approval of Board pointed out the amended ESR. It is, therefore, apparent that the Board resolution has been implemented through this Office Memorandum on 26.06.2013. Thus, the General Manager has after pointing out the approval of Board pointed out the amended ESR. It is, therefore, apparent that the Board resolution has been implemented through this Office Memorandum on 26.06.2013. There is nothing on record to show that the Board resolution needs to be given effect to before its implementation or execution by the General Manager. The respondents have not pointed out any provision which has the effect of amending the rules merely by act of passing of resolution by the Board without its publication for the general information of the employees. The Board itself has not given any date for coming into force of such amendment. 12. We, therefore, find substance in the contention of learned Advocate Shri Patil for the petitioner that the rules are amended for the first time on 26.06.2013 and hence the petitioner who has retired on 30.11.2012 cannot be subjected to the amended provision. Board itself finds “incorporation” of its resolution as part of Service Rules essential & hence till so incorporated, the amendment & Rules do not come into force. 13. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the charge-sheet as also departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner by respondent No. 2-Corporation. 14. We direct the respondent No. 2-Corporation, to release all his terminal/retiral dues as prayed for in prayer after proper calculation thereof, within period of four months from today. 15. If the Service Rules contain any stipulation for paying interest on such delayed payment/interest, accordingly, shall also be paid to the petitioner. In absence of such provision, the interest calculated at the rate of 7% per annum on the said amount shall also be paid to him till the date of actual payment. 16. Rule is made absolute accordingly in both the petitions. No costs.