JUDGMENT B. P. Singh, J. The petitioner herein filed the instant writ petition on 8th February, 1996 claiming to be the General Secretary of the Bhartiya Sulabh Shouchalya Karamchari Sangh as a public interest litigation. Notices were issued to the respondents who have appeared and opposed the grant of relief to the petitioner. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent No.2, the Administrator, Patna Municipal Corporation as also on behalf of respondent no. 3 M/s Sulabh International. We have heard counsel for the parties at length and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. The petitioner claiming to be the General Secretary of the Bhartiya Sulabh Shouchaya Karmchari Sangh has prayed for quashing of the memo appended to the notification Annexure-1 dated 25.l.1996 issued by the Administrator, Patna Municipal Corporation respondent No.2, whereby the Patna Municipal Corporation decided to withdraw from M/s Sulabh International, respondent No.3, the responsibility of the maintenance of the public latrines and bathrooms popularly known as Sulabh Shouchalaya and Asnangrih. By the memo, he has directed the concerned officers to take over charge within 24 hours and to depute the employees of the Patna Municipal Corporation to look after the maintenance of the aforesaid public latrines and bathrooms. Anuexme-2 is the notice inviting tenders for the settlement of the aforesaid public latrines and bathrooms published ill the local Hindi daily Hindustan on 7th February, 1996. The petitioner has prayed that a direction be issued to the Patna Municipal Corporation to take over the former employees of the 44 public latrines and bathrooms engaged by the erstwhile contractor M/s Sulabh International along with the public latrines and bathrooms and to treat them as employees of the Patna Municipal Corporation. It has further been prayed that appropriate direction be issued to the respondent No. 3, M/s Sulabh International to make payment of arrears of salary and wages to their erstwhile employees after the disposal of Civil appeal No. 2527 of 1991 pending before the Supreme Court of India. 3. The cape of the petitioner sought to be projected in the writ petition is that the Patna Municipal Corporation got public latrines and bathrooms constructed through a contractor M/s Sulabh International, respondent no. 3, the cost whereof was met by the Parna Municipal Corporation from out of it own funds and those allotted by the State Government. 3. The cape of the petitioner sought to be projected in the writ petition is that the Patna Municipal Corporation got public latrines and bathrooms constructed through a contractor M/s Sulabh International, respondent no. 3, the cost whereof was met by the Parna Municipal Corporation from out of it own funds and those allotted by the State Government. After the construction of the public latrines and bathrooms, they were entrusted to the contractor, respondent no. 3, for their management and maintenance. The contractor engaged employees for the proper management and maintenance of such public latrines and bathrooms but paid to the employees very low wages, even though they collected huge amounts by way of user charges from the public latrines and bathrooms entrusted to their management. In these circumstances, the Union of workers raised an industrial dispute and the matter was ultimately referred for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal at Patna being reference case No. 23 of 1982. The contractor, respondent no. 3, contested the claim of the workmen but the Industrial Tribunal by its award dated 4th July, 1988 answered the reference in favour of the workmen and directed that the pay scale of different categories of the workmen be fixed on the basis of the recommendation of the 4th Pay Commission of the State Government together with dearness allowance from 15.6.1982. This award was challenged by the Contractor, respondent no. 3 in a writ petition before this Court bring CWJC No. 3408 of 1989 and this Court quashed the award by an exparte order dated 9th February, 1990. The workers Union preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court, and after special leave was granted, the said appeal was registered as Civil Appeal No. 2527 of 1991. An interim order was passed by the Supreme Court on the 14th of May, 1991 staying the impugned judgement of the High Court while directing payment of regular pay from 1st May, 1991, as directed by the Tribunal. The Supreme Court however, stayed the payment of back wages. Since the said order of the Supreme Court was not obeyed by respondent no. 3, a contempt application was also filed before the Supreme Court of India. It is averred in the writ petition that the Civil appeal as well as Contempt petition were pending disposal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 4. Since the said order of the Supreme Court was not obeyed by respondent no. 3, a contempt application was also filed before the Supreme Court of India. It is averred in the writ petition that the Civil appeal as well as Contempt petition were pending disposal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 4. The case of the petitioner is that while the workmen were looking forward to a final order being passed by the Supreme Court of India, the Administrator, Patna Municipal Corporation issued the order Annexure 1 dated 25.1.1996 taking over charge of all the public latrines and bathrooms which had been entrusted to the management of respondent no. 3 M/s Sulabh International. The petitioners have categorically averred that they have no objection, rather they welcon1e the order of the Administrator taking over the management and maintenance of the aforesaid public latrines and bathrooms, but their grievance is to the deputation of Patna Municipal Corporation employees to work in those public latrines and bathrooms. The petitioner is aggrieved by the memo appended to the order whereby the authorities have been directed to depute employers of the Patna Municipal Corporation to work in the public latrines and bathrooms taken over by the Patna Municipal Corporation. The petitioner claims that a representation was filed before the Chief Minister and other authorities complaining against take over by the Patna Municipal Corporation when the matter relating to payment of revised pay scale to the employees was pending before the Supreme Court. The petitioner states that the Administrator of the Patna Municipal Corporation having got knowledge of the petition filed before the authorities and apprehending that his order taking over management of public latrines and bathrooms nay be stayed by the Government, immediately published a notice inviting tenders in the local Hindi daily Hindustan on 7th February, 1996 for settlement of the aforesaid public latrines and bathrooms with private individuals. The notice inviting tenders was in regard to 44 such public latrines and bathrooms situated in different localities within the area administred by the Patna Municipal Corporation. The said notice inviting tenders has been annexed as Annexure -2. The case of the petitioner is that workmen of different categories employed by the Contractor cannot be displaced by taking over the management and maintenance of the public latrines and bathrooms. The said notice inviting tenders has been annexed as Annexure -2. The case of the petitioner is that workmen of different categories employed by the Contractor cannot be displaced by taking over the management and maintenance of the public latrines and bathrooms. The Municipal Corporation must take over the services for the employees of the erstwhile contractor. The petitioner has in effect claimed that the management and maintenance of the public latrines and bathrooms be taken over together with the services of the employees employed by the erstwhile contractor. 5. Respondent No. 3 M/s Sulabh International, has filed a Counter affidavit bringing to the notice of this Court the various suppressions and mis-statement of facts by the petitioner. It is stated that there is no appeal pending before the Supreme Court of India, nor was any such appeal pending on the date on which the writ petition was filed before this Court. It has produced before this Court the judgement of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3408 of 1982 whereby the award passed in favour of the workmen of M/s Sulabh International was quashed by this Court, as also the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2527 of 1991 which establishes that the appeal aswell as the contempt application were dismissed as withdrawn as early as on February 17, 1994. Knowingly, the petitioner had suppressed this fact and mis-stated facts by stating that the civil appeal as well as the contempt application were pending before the Supreme Court. It has, therefore, been submitted on behalf of respondent no. 3 that no direction can be given to respondent no. 3 for payment of arrears of wages to its erstwhile workmen, because the award in their favour has been quashed by this Court and the judgement and order of this Court has attained finality by the dismissal of the appeal preferred by the workman before the Supreme Court. Relying upon the judgement of this Court which has attained finality, it was submitted that the workmen union as found by the High Court is a spurious body, and even the dispute was raised by a Senior Advocate on his own volition who was definitely not a workman of any establishment. In fact, even the registration granted to the union was cancelled by the State Government finding it to be a spurious organisation. In fact, even the registration granted to the union was cancelled by the State Government finding it to be a spurious organisation. By the same judgement, this Court held that M/s Sulabh International could not be held to be an "industry" on the basis of the material available on record. M/s Sulabh International claimed to be a voluntary organisation of social workers with laudable objectives. The establishment had set up lavatories and bathrooms for the use of public which did not require cleaning by scavengers, nor did it require carrying of night-soil by any one. Unemployed scavengers and other persons were imparted vocational training at various centres with a view to help them find jobs. The establishment had a large number of volunteers who were paid small sums of money by way of pocket money. 6. From the facts stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 it is apparent that the petitioner has suppressed facts and attempted to mislead this Court into believing that a dispute was still pending adjudication before the Supreme Court of India. This Court could have refused to entertain this writ petition on this ground alone, apart from the ground that the workers union has been found to be a spurious organisation by this Court. However in order to put to an end the dispute, the case of the petitioner may be examined on its merit. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Administrator of the Patna Municipal Corporation respondent no. 2, in which it has been stated that pursuant to a scheme of converting service latrines into Sulabh Public toilets by the State Government as many as 126 Sulabh Public toilet complexes were constructed at different sites. The construction work was undertaken by a contractor, namely, M/s Sulabh International. The expenditure incurred on the execution of the scheme was incurred by the Patna Municipal Corporation with the assistance of government grants and loans. The constructions were undertaken on lands belonging to the respondent Corporation. M/s Sulabh International was only an agency employed by the Corporation which was given the assignment of converting existing service latrines into Sulabh Public toilets. After the construction of the public toilets, the same agency namely M/s Sulabh International respondent no. The constructions were undertaken on lands belonging to the respondent Corporation. M/s Sulabh International was only an agency employed by the Corporation which was given the assignment of converting existing service latrines into Sulabh Public toilets. After the construction of the public toilets, the same agency namely M/s Sulabh International respondent no. 3 was given the responsibility of maintenance of the public toilets within the Patna Municipal Corporation area, and they undertook the said responsibility on no profit no loss basis. Respondent No. 3 was permitted to collect charges from the users so as to facilitate the maintenance of the public toilets, without making a profit. The Corporation, on the other hand, supplied water, sewerage facilities etc, to such toilets without charging anything from the contractor, with a view to ensure proper management of the public toilets for the benefit of the users of such toilets. It has been stated categorically that since the year 1977-78, the Contractor M/s Sulabh International bas not paid a single penny to the respondent Corporation by way of tax, fees or rent, or even for the facilities made available to it. However, there was an appraisal of the functioning and maintenance of public toilets towards the end of the year 1995 find it was revealed that respondent No.3, contractor had taken interest in the maintenance of only commercially viable toilet complexes and had not been maintaining other public toilets which had been entrusted to its management and maintenance. As a result, large number of such public toilets had fallen into a state of disrepair on account of the negligence of tile contractor. In these circumstances, the Administrator of the Patna Municipal Corporation sought appropriate directions from the State Government with regard to the proposal for settlement of such public toilets by tender of auction so that all the toilets could be properly maintained. This policy had the dual benefit of ensuring the proper maintenance of toilets as well as fetching revenue which could be utilised for the maintenance of isolated public toilets for which there may be no bidders having regard to their location and commercial viability. Since the government did not object to such a proposal, in public interest the Corporation took a decision to settle public toilets with private individuals by inviting tenders. Since the government did not object to such a proposal, in public interest the Corporation took a decision to settle public toilets with private individuals by inviting tenders. In pursuance of this decision the arrangement with M/s Sulabh International was annulled by issuance of notification Annexure -1 dated 25.1.1996, and employees of the Patna Municipal Corporation were deputed to look after the work of maintenance of the public toilets during the intervening period. Soon thereafter on 7.2.1996, notice inviting tenders was published in the Newspapers for the settlement of 44 such public toilets with private individuals. It has been stated that the settlement of 37 public toilets in two circles has fetched revenue of Rs. 28,32,754/- which is manifest from the bids of the successful bidders. A tabulated chart has been annexued as Annexure –R 2 ‘B’ Pursuant to the settlement most of the successful bidders have already desposited the requisites amount and agreements have been entered into with several settlees. With regard to others, the matter with regard to execution of the settlement document is in progress. The terms and conditions of the agreement reveal that the users of such public toilets are required to pay the same charges as was earlier fixed when M/s Sulabh International, respondent no. 3 was entrusted with the management and maintenance of the toilets. The settlees however, are liable to pay to the Corporation charges for electricity and water. Clause 10 of the agreement in terms provides that the settlees, if they so desired, may employ the erstwhile employees of the contractor if they were found fit for the job. 8. The claim of the petitioner that the erstwhile employees of the contractor should be taken over by the Patna Municipal Corporation and employed by it, has been disputed by respondent No.2 and it is submitted that the so called employees/social workers of the erstwhile contractor have no right in law to claim absorption in the service of the Patna Municipal Corporation. If they were entitled to any relief against their erstwhile employer, they must seek their remedy in accordance with law. In fact M/s Sulabh International vide its letter dated 10.2.1996 has submitted a list of social workers which were employed and involved in the work of maintenance of Sulabh public toilets managed by it. If they were entitled to any relief against their erstwhile employer, they must seek their remedy in accordance with law. In fact M/s Sulabh International vide its letter dated 10.2.1996 has submitted a list of social workers which were employed and involved in the work of maintenance of Sulabh public toilets managed by it. The aforesaid letter also discloses that only 35 Sulabh public toilets were being maintained by the erstwhile contractor. 9. From the facts noticed above, there is no dispute about the fact that the erstwhile employees of the contractor were not the employees of the Patna Municipal Corporation nor did Patna Municipal Corporation have any control whatsoever on them. They were engaged by the erstwhile contractor as social workers who were being paid a pocket allowance for their day to day expenses and were being imparted vocational training. Counsel for the petitioner clearly stated that the workmen employed by the contractor do not claim to be employees of Patna Municipal Corporation. He however submits that as a matter of law, when the management of public toilets have been taken over, the services of the persons employed by the erstwhile contractor must also be taken over by the Patna Municipal Corporation, and they should be absorbed in the service of the Patna Municipal Corporation. In my view, there is no warrant for the broad general proposition propounded by counsel for the petitioner that in all cases, even in the absence of enacted legislation or rules having the force of law, upon termination of the contract whether by efflux of time or for any other reason, the State or its instrumentality is bound to take ever and employ all the erstwhile workers of the contractor. The petitioner has not challenged the annulment of the agreement with M/s Sulabh International. Infact the petitioner has welcomed the step taken by the Patna Municipal Corporation of taking over management and maintenance of public toilets. M/s Sulabh International, respondent no. 3, has also not challenged the decision of the Patna Municipal Corporation annulling the arrangement. Having regard to the reasons disclosed for taking over the management of public toilets, I am satisfied that the management has been taken over in public interest. The only question which survives for consideration is whether the workers employed by Sulabh International, the erstwhile contractor, must be taken in tile employment of the Patna Municipal Corporation. Having regard to the reasons disclosed for taking over the management of public toilets, I am satisfied that the management has been taken over in public interest. The only question which survives for consideration is whether the workers employed by Sulabh International, the erstwhile contractor, must be taken in tile employment of the Patna Municipal Corporation. M/s Sulabh International, respondent no. 3, have infact successfully challenged the claim of the petitioner-Union that M/s Sulabh International is an industry, and that the workers Union is a genuine body. It has relied upon the judgement of this Court marked as Annexure-X to its counter affidavit which has attained finality by the dismissal of the appeal before the Supreme Court. 10. Be that as it may, the petitioner has not been able to show any law or rule which obliges the State to take over the employees of a contractor upon termination of the contract. It is futile to refer to the nationalisation schemes under which Banking Companies, Insurance Companies, Oil companies or the Coal mines were nationalised. In all such cases, the statute providing for the nationalisation in terms secured the rights of the erstwhile employees of the undertakings nationalised. It was pursuant to such statutory protection that the erstwhile employees were continued as the employees of the undertakings which came into existence as a consequence of nationalisation schemes. It cannot be doubted that in the case of take over or nationalisation of an undertaking, if the law so provides specifically, the services of employees of the erstwhile undertaking may also be taken over and they may be continued as employees of the taken over or the nationalised undertakings. The protection of employment may flow from express statutory provision, but in their absence such a benefit cannot be claimed by erstwhile workmen as a matter of right. In the instant case, there is no law, nor are there rules, which grant such protection to the employees of the erstwhile contractor. In principle, therefore, there is nothing to support the erstwhile workers of the contractor to claim appointment as a matter of course under the Patna Municipal Corporation, consequent upon the termination of the earlier arrangement or contract. It is not the case of the petitioner that any such obligation was cast upon the Patna Municipal Corporation even under the agreement entered into between the Patna Municipal Corporation and the erstwhile contractors. 11. It is not the case of the petitioner that any such obligation was cast upon the Patna Municipal Corporation even under the agreement entered into between the Patna Municipal Corporation and the erstwhile contractors. 11. Counsel for the petitioner, however, relied upon three decisions of the Supreme Court to sustain his plea that in such cases the services of the erstwhile workmen must also be taken over in normal course, without there being any law providing for the same. In this connection, reliance was placed upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1959, Supreme Court, 208 (Kays constructions Company (Private) Limited. Vs. Its workmen). The facts of that case were quite different, and the principle enuciated is wholly inapplicable to the facts of this case. In the matter before the Supreme Court, there was a dispute between the appellant M/s Kays Construction Company (Private) Limited and M/s Kays Construction Company Allahabad by its sole proprietor Mr. H.M. Khosla (respondent no. 2) on the one hand, and the workmen originally employed by respondent no. 2 on the other. The appellant Company being a Private limited Company was incorporated on June, 23, 1956. It had submitted tenders for construction of railway coaches which was accepted by the North-Eastern Railway and the acceptance was communicated to the appellant at the end of March, 1957. On April, 10, 1957, the appellant had entered into an agreement with Mr. H. M. Khosla for the purchase of machinery and tools, furniture and fittings belonging to respondent No.2. By the end of April, 1957, the appellant advertised that it wanted to employ workmen for the purpose of constructing railway couches for the Railway administration. Several persons were employed by the appellant-Company, including some who were erstwhile employees of respondent no. 2. Earlier the respondent no. 2 had been carrying on work of construction of railway coaches under the orders received from the Railway Administration, but according to it, it had decided to close its business owing to financial difficulties and to terminate the services of its employees. A dispute arose between respondent no. 2 and its workmen which was referred to Industrial Tribunal, but the same ended in a compromise with an agreement that respondent no. 2 shall pay bonus to its workmen for entire period of its existence. The workmen however did not accept the respondent's no. A dispute arose between respondent no. 2 and its workmen which was referred to Industrial Tribunal, but the same ended in a compromise with an agreement that respondent no. 2 shall pay bonus to its workmen for entire period of its existence. The workmen however did not accept the respondent's no. 2 allegations that it had closed its business. Their claim was that only to defeat the legitimate rights of the workmen the name of the concern was changed, and that the appellant was, therefore, under an obligation to employ all the workmen of respondent no. 2. A dispute arose and the same was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the relevant facts came to the conclusion that the workmen in question had been improperly lockd out and were entitled to reinstatement. It held that the plea of the appellant that it was a new and independent company was not proved. The Tribunal took the view that though the appellant and respondent no. 2 have to be taken as two separate legal entities, yet from all accepted cannos of social justice, the workmen must be deemed to be confirming in the same business which was only given a different name to defeat their rights already accrued or in the process of formation. The Supreme Court held that since the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal were based on the material on record, there was no justification for challenging the award on abstract legal grounds. It will thus be seen that in the aforesaid case the Tribunal had held in clear terms that the workmen must be deemed to be continuing in the same business which was only given a different name to defeat the rights of the workmen. In the instant case, the facts are quite different. Admittedly, the contractor M/s Sulabh International is a distinct legal entity and has no connection whatsoever with the Patna Municipal Corporation, which is a statutory authority, It is not case of the petitioner that M/s Sulabh International is still continuing the business under the garb of control and management of the Patna Municipal Corporation. The aforesaid decision, therefore, is of no help to the petitioner. 12. The second decision on which reliance is placed by the petitioner is Punjab National Bank (Ltd.) Vs. Its workmen, ( 1963 (I) L.L.J. 259 ). The aforesaid decision, therefore, is of no help to the petitioner. 12. The second decision on which reliance is placed by the petitioner is Punjab National Bank (Ltd.) Vs. Its workmen, ( 1963 (I) L.L.J. 259 ). In this case as well the facts were quite different. The Punjab National Bank of India took over the banking business carried on by the Bharat Banking Company Limited and a portion of its assests. At the time of transfer, the Bharat Bank Limited had 2400 employees in its various branches in India. The Punjab National Bank found it difficult to absorb all the 2400 employees and therefore it absorbed only 700 employees taking into consideration their seniority and past record of services etc. The workmen who were not taken over by the transferee bank raised a dispute and claimed absorption as also compensation for the period of their unemployment. The Industrial Tribunal found that it was not possible for the Punjab National Bank to absorb all the employees concerned and, therefore, made a direction that against future vacancies such employees may be appointed and be paid emoluments not less than those drawn by them in the Bharat Bank on the 10th of March, 1951 or 10th April, 1951 whichever amount was higher. The Tribunal also directed that twelve months emoluments should be paid by the transferee bank as compensation to each and everyone of the ex-employees of the Bharat Bank who had not been absorbed by the transferee Bank. From the facts stated in the judgement of the Supreme Court, it appear that the Punjab National Bank took over the liabilities of the Bharat Bank to its depositors and creditors to the extent of about eight crores and in consideration of the same, the Bharat Bank transferred to the Punjab National Bank some of its assests and the whole of its banking business. The Punjab National Bank which was the appellant before the Supreme Court found that it could not take all the 2400 employees of Bharat Bank because taking the load of all the employees would have defeated the very object of transfer. It was, in these circumstances, that only about 700 employee of Bharat Bank were employed by the appellant-Bank, namely, Punjab National Bank. It was, in these circumstances, that only about 700 employee of Bharat Bank were employed by the appellant-Bank, namely, Punjab National Bank. The Tribunal held that the Punjab National Bank (appellant) was the successor of the Bharat Bank so far as the banking business of the said Bank was concerned. There was a complete transfer of the banking business of the Bharat Bank to the appellant Bank, namely, Punjab National Bank. It also held that in picking and choosing the employees of the Bharat Bank for its employment, the appellant Bank did not follow well recognised principles of industrial law. However, it was of the view that it was not possible for the Punjab National Bank to employ all the employees of Bharat Bank, for that would, have obviously defeated the very object of transfer. It was, in these circumstances, that the Tribunal made an award giving certain directions. The Supreme Court held that the direction given by the Tribunal in regard to employment of the previous employees of the Bharat Bank against future vacancies was justified. However, it set aside the direction of the Tribunal that on re-employment, the employees shall be given the post corresponding to those last held by them in the Bharat Bank or equivalent post of the lame cadre. The Supreme Court thought that such a direction may create complications and may lead to dispute and bitterness between the existing employees and the new recruits. So far as payment of compensation was concerned, however, the Supreme Court held that if Tribunal found that only 700 employees could be re-employed by the appellant-Bank, there was no justification for the direction to pay compensation to those who could not be employed by the Punjab National Bank of India. 13. The principles laid down in the aforesaid judgenent do not help the petitioner, because this is not a case of take over of a business. The at1mitted facts are that the public latrines and bathrooms were constructed on land belonging to the Patna Municipal Corporation at its own cost and that M/s Sulabh International was only the contractor for maintenance of the said public toilets. This is not a case where the business of M/s Sulabh International has been taken over by the Patna Muncipal Corporation. 14. This is not a case where the business of M/s Sulabh International has been taken over by the Patna Muncipal Corporation. 14. Lastly reliance was placed upon another decision of Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1217 (Bihar State Road Transport Corporation Vs. State of Bihar & others). The facts of that case also are quite different and the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgement do not apply to the facts of this case. The relevant facts of the case were that the Government of Bihar was conducting through one of its department called the "Rajya Transport Authority" an undertaking of road transport in the State. Respondent no. 3 was appointed as a Head Clerk in the office of the Divisional Manager, Rajya Transport, Bhagalpur with effect from July 27, 1956. By order dated February 18, 1959, he was discharged from service. On April 20, 1959, the State Government in exercise of power conferred by Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 64 of 1950 set up as from May 1, 1959, the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. The notification inter alia stated that the said Corporation shall, with effect from the said date, exercise all the powers and perform all the functions which were being exercised and performed by Rajya Transport, Bihar. In the meantime, a dispute with regard to termination of services of respondent no. 3 had been referred to the Labour Court which by its award found that the order terminating his services was punitive in nature, and since no inquiry was conducted, the order of discharge was not justified. The order of the Labour Court was upheld by the High Court. A question arose as to whether the said respondent no.3 was an employee of the Rajya Transport Authority on the relevant date i.e. May 1, 1959, because it was the case of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (appellant) before the High Court that it had taken over a. from May 1, 1959 such of the employees of the Rajya Transport Authority into its service who were on the rolls of the said authority on the date on which it came into existence. In these circumstances, it was held that if the services of respondent no. In these circumstances, it was held that if the services of respondent no. 3 were illegally terminated and the order was found to be invalid, if never became operative and respondent no.3 would be deemed to be continuing in the service of Rajya Transport Authority on May 1, 1959 and, therefore, on its rolls. 15. From the facts noticed above. it would be apparent that the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation admitted that it had taken over such of the employees of the Rajya Transport Authority into its services who were on the rolls of the said authority on the date it came into existence. Since there was no dispute on this aspect of the matter, the only question which fell for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether respondent no. 2 was on the rolls of the Rajya Transport Authority on the relevant date. It was held that since his services had been terminated by an invalid order and the same having been set aside it must be deemed that he was on the rolls of Rajya Transport Authority on the relevant date and therefore, entitled to employment under the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. In the instant case no such question arises for consideration. The Patna Municipal Corporation has not taken over the services of the erstwhile employees of the contractor, and does not admit its obligation to do so. 16. Having considered all aspects of the matter, I have no doubt in coming to the conclusion that this writ petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs. D.P. Wadhwa, C.J. I agree Application dismissed.