G. R. BHATTACHARJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE four writ petitioners were originally working In the Calcutta Office of the Entrepreneurial Guidance Bureau (EGB) run by the Indian Investment Centre (IIC) which is a Central Government Organisation. The petitioner No. l was appointed as Receptionist-cum-Telephone Operator in October, 1977. The petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Stenographer in 1974. The petitioner No. 3 was appointed as Peon In 1973 and the petitioner No. 4 as Farash/sweeper in 1972. In or about 1981 the Government of India decided to wind up the offices of the EGB run by the TIC at several centres Including Calcutta with effect from the afternoon of the 31st December, 1981. The Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) was requested to take over the concerned offices of the EGB with effect from the 1st January, 1982 either by itself or by such organisation as it might designate or set up for the purpose with a view to peventing the less of employment to the staff working in the concerned offices and also to ensure the continuity of the useful functions performed by those offices. It was decided that the staff would continue to get the pay and allowances which they had been drawing in the office of the EGB. Accordingly, the IDBI requested the Industrial Reconstitution Corporation of India Ltd. (IRCI) to examine the feasibility of offering employment to the concerned staff in the Organisation and the IRCI in turn offered temporary appointment to the petitioners in the Calcutta office for a period of five years on certain terms and conditions including the term that the petitioners would continue to get the pay and allowances and other benefits which they had been enjoying in the office of the EGB for the said period of temporary appointment and that the service rules of IIC would continue to operate during the above period unless otherwise notified. It was also stipulated by the IRCI that after completion of five years of satisfactory service the Corporation would consider the feasibility of granting them permanent employment with the Corporation subject to the vacancies existing at the material time and depending on their performance. The petitioners agreed in accept the temporary employment accordingly on the proposed terms and conditions. It may be mentioned here that subsequently Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India (IRBI) came into existence in the place of IRCI. The petitioners agreed in accept the temporary employment accordingly on the proposed terms and conditions. It may be mentioned here that subsequently Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India (IRBI) came into existence in the place of IRCI. ( 2 ) SOMETIME in May 1986 the Indian Investment Centre issued notices slating that the services of the petitioners who had been working on deputation in the IRBI since 1. 1. 1982 were no longer required by the IRBI and accordingly their services were terminated by the Indian Investment Centre under Rule 13 of the IIC Service Rules on payment of salary for three months in lieu of the notice period. Consequently the IRBI also informed the petitioners that as their services were terminated by the Indian Investment Center, the temporary appointment which they had been holding under the IRBI also stood automatically terminated. Thus the petitioners' services under the IIC and the deputation services on temporary basis under the IRBI stood terminated in May, 1986. The petitioners however applied to the IRBI for employment and they were granted new employment under the IRBI on new terms and conditions stipulated in their respective appointment letters. Annexures I and J, both dated the 10th June, 1986 are two new appointment letters Issued by the IRBI in favour of the petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 1 respectively. The payscale offered to the concerned petitioners and the starting pay in such pay-scale have been mentioned in the respective appointment letters. The terms and conditions of appointment were accepted by the petitioners. ( 3 ) IT is the petitioners' contention that the pay-scales awarded for the petitioners on their new appointment under the IRBI in June 1986 were determined and fixed with reference to the pay-scale which the petitioners were enjoying under the Indian Investment Centre and subsequently on the revision of the pay-scales of the Central Government employees on the basis of the 4th pay revision with effect from the 1st January, 1986, the pay-scales of the employees of the Indian Investment Centre were also similarly revised and in view of such revision the Indian Investment Centre later on paid to the petitioners arrear on the basis of revised pay-scales for the period from the 1st January, 1986 to the date of termination o services In May. 1986, that is, during the service tenure under the Indian Investment Centre. 1986, that is, during the service tenure under the Indian Investment Centre. The contention of the petitioners is that in June, 1986 when the petitioners were given fresh appointment under the IRBI there was no opportunity to fix their pay on the basis of the revised pay-scale because the revised pay-scales although given retrespective effect from 1st January, 1986, were announced subsequent to June, 1986, but once the revised pay-scales were adopted by the IIC with effect from 1. 1. 1986 and the arrear pay on the basis of such revised pay-scales were also paid to the petitioners for the period for which they were in service under the IIC, the petitioners' pay-scales under the IRBI should have been subsequently fixed suitably with reference to the revised pay-scales adopted by the IIC with effect from 1. 1. 1986. The petitioners pray for relief by way of grant of appropriate pay-scales to them under the IRBI. They also pray for the benefit of continuity of service under the IRBI by reckoning the entire service period under the IIC and they claim seniority accordingly. Alternatively, they claim gratuity according to law for the services they rendered under the IIC. They have also the grievance that the entire leave salary etc. payable to them for their services under the IIC have not been paid. ( 4 ) THE respondents are contesting this writ petition in two sets. One set is the IRBI and Its authorities who are the respondent Nos. l to 5 and the other set is the Indian Investment Centre and its Secretary, namely, the respondent Nos. 7 and 8. The substance of the contention of the IRBI is that the appointments of the petitioners under them in June 1986 are absolutely fresh appointments and are in no way a continuity of their earlier appointments or the terms and conditions of the services under IIC. Having regard to the facts and circumstances narrated above, there is no manner of doubt that the appointments of the petitioners in June 1986 under the IRBI are all fresh appointments on fresh terms and conditions and therefore they cannot now claim that they should be given higher pay-scales In view of the revision of payscales by the ITC with effect from 1. 1. 1986. 1. 1986. IL Is contended on behalf of the IRBI that the petitioners were given such pay-scales at the time of their fresh appointments under the IRBI as were applicable to the employees of the IRBI in the respective categories. Whatever might have been the background, the fact remains that the petitioners were given fresh appointments in June, 1986 under the IRBI on fresh terms and conditions which were at par with the other employees of the similar categories in the IRBI and therefore the petitioners cannot now claim to be placed in a more advantageous position than the employees of the IRBI in the respective categories simply because they were earlier serving in IIC, more so when the appointments in June 1986 under the IRBI were fresh and new appointments given virtually by way of compassion on the basis of their own applications for appointment. It is needless to mention that after their new appointment under the IRBI If the IRBI revise the pay-scales of their employees the benelit of the same will be available to the petitioners also along with the other employees of the IRBI. After all the petitioners cannot, in the background of the facts and circumstances, claim themselves to be a favoured class of employees under the IRBI compared to the other employees working there. The claim of the petitioners, therefore, for enhanced pay-scales or for counting of past services under the IIC cannot be entertained, so far as their services under the IRBI are concerned. ( 5 ) BUT, of course, the petitioners alternative prayer (as submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioners at the time of hearing) for payment of gratuity etc. for the services of the petitioners under IIC till termination in May 1986 deserves due consideration. As we have seen, the services of the petitioners under the IIC were terminated by the IIC to May 1986. Their claim for gratuity for the services they rendered under IIC cannot therefore be ignored. The learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 attracted my attention to section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and submitted that under section 4 (1) gratuity is payable only in the circumstances mentioned therein which are not applicable to the case of the petitioners. The relevant portion of section 4 (1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 1972 runs thus :-"4. 7 and 8 attracted my attention to section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and submitted that under section 4 (1) gratuity is payable only in the circumstances mentioned therein which are not applicable to the case of the petitioners. The relevant portion of section 4 (1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 1972 runs thus :-"4. Payment of Gratuity- (1) Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years (a) on his superannuation, or (b) on his retirement or resignation, or (c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . "it is sought to be argued on behalf of the said respondents that since the petitioners' services were terminated by notice and since such termination is not covered by any of the clauses mentioned in section 4 (1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the petitioners are not entitled to any gratuity. This argument is however not tenable. Section 2 (q) of the Act contains a definition which runs thus :-"2 (Q ). 'retirement' means termination of the service of an employee otherwise then on superannuation. "consequently the termination of the petitioners' services by notice on payment of three months' pay in lieu of notice period comes within the definition of the term 'retirement' as defined in section 2 (q) of the said Act and as such termination attracts section 4 (1) for payment of gratuity. In this connection I am also to mention that the respondents Nos. 7 and 8, in paragraph 12 of their affidavit-in-opposition, have clearly acknowledged that the balance amount on account of revised scale of pay for three months of notice period could be paid if the IRBI had been prompt enough to Intimate the revised pay fixed and similarly proportionate gratuity and encashment of leave could be paid if the IRBI would have communicated the amount due. In paragraph 15 of the said affidavit-in-opposition also it has been stated clearly that the answering respondents have no responsibility whatsoever in respect of the petitioners excepting payment of certain financial benefits subject to the computation and communication of the quantum thereof by the IRBI. The stand taken by the respondents Nos. 7 and 8 is slightly confusing. In paragraph 15 of the said affidavit-in-opposition also it has been stated clearly that the answering respondents have no responsibility whatsoever in respect of the petitioners excepting payment of certain financial benefits subject to the computation and communication of the quantum thereof by the IRBI. The stand taken by the respondents Nos. 7 and 8 is slightly confusing. The question of payment of gratuity and other admissible benefits with reference to the termination of the petitioners' services under the IIC has absolutely no connection with the question of fixation of pay for the appointment given to the petitioners in June 1986 by the IRBI. For the purpose of computing the gratuity payable. the pay admissible to the petitioners on the date Immediately preceding the date of their termination of services by the IIC has to be taken into consideration. As regards the leave salary or leave encashment also the amount has to be calculated on the basis of the admissible salary payable to the petitioners by the IIC on the said date while they were in service under the IIC. Similarly pay for the notice period with reference to the termination of the service under the IIC also has to be calculated on the basis of rate of pay admissible to the petitioners on the date immediately preceding the date of their termination of services. The IRBI has little to do in the matter. In the circumstances the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 are directed to make payment to the writ petitioners as may be admissible under law under the following heads : (a) Gratuity. (b) Leave encashment for earned leave and half pay leave, if not already paid fully. (c) The balance amount of three months' notice pay as may be remaining outstanding yet on the basis of the revised pay-scale applicable to the petitioners on the date immediately preceding the date of their termination of the services under the IIC. All these payments to the petitioners shall be made by the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 within 12 weeks from the date of communication of this order. If any information or particulars are required by the IIC regarding the accumulated period of leave of the petitioners for the purpose of calculation of leave encashment for earned leave and half pay leave, the same shall be furnished by the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 within 12 weeks from the date of communication of this order. If any information or particulars are required by the IIC regarding the accumulated period of leave of the petitioners for the purpose of calculation of leave encashment for earned leave and half pay leave, the same shall be furnished by the respondent Nos. l to 5 to the IIC within two weeks from the date of receipt of requisition for such information or particulars from the IIC. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No cost is however ordered. Petition disposed of of