Retrospective rule-making upheld where statute permits it; later amendment validly changed service conditions without encroaching on judicial power.

Retrospective substitution of rule 200 was upheld because the amended statutory scheme expressly authorised retrospective rule-making, including service conditions of co-operative society employees; the amended rule validly applied to employees in service and withdrew the earlier saving as to retirement age. The challenge that the new rule impermissibly reversed an earlier judicial interpretation also failed, because a prior construction of the unamended rule does not bar later amendment where the rule-making authority is lawfully empowered to change the legal basis. The earlier decision had only interpreted the prior rule and did not create an enforceable mandamus or binding inter partes relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State Government had power under the Act, as amended, to make rule 200 retrospective so as to affect the service conditions of existing employees. (ii) Whether the substituted rule 200 impermissibly annulled or reversed the earlier judicial interpretation of the unamended rule and encroached upon judicial power.

Issue (i): Whether the State Government had power under the Act, as amended, to make rule 200 retrospective so as to affect the service conditions of existing employees.

Analysis: The amended statutory scheme expressly conferred power to make rules retrospectively. The rule-making power under the Act extended to service conditions of employees of co-operative societies, and the substituted rule was made in exercise of that power. The new rule applied to employees in service on the relevant date and expressly withdrew the saving of the right regarding age of retirement.

Conclusion: The retrospective substitution of rule 200 was within power and is valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the substituted rule 200 impermissibly annulled or reversed the earlier judicial interpretation of the unamended rule and encroached upon judicial power.

Analysis: A court's interpretation of an existing rule does not prevent the rule-making authority from amending the rule later and giving it a different content. The earlier decision had only construed the then-existing rule and had not granted any mandamus or adjudicated the parties' rights inter se. The new rule did not reverse a binding judicial command but altered the legal basis prospectively for existing employees. The challenge based on impermissible encroachment on judicial power therefore failed.

Conclusion: The substituted rule 200 does not annul the earlier judgment or encroach upon judicial power.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed, the challenge to the substituted saving rule was rejected, and leave to appeal was refused.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the legislature or delegated rule-making authority validly changes the legal basis of a rule, a later amendment may operate retrospectively on existing rights if the statute so permits, and such amendment does not amount to an impermissible annulment of a prior judgment that only construed the earlier rule without granting enforceable relief.

---