JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to fix the salary of the petitioner in the scale of Rs. 370-890 from 28.8.1981 and in the scale of Rs. 500-860 from 1.9.1981 with subsequent revision. 2. The petitioner was recruited in the services of the Tourist Department of the Government of Rajasthan as Water Pump Mechanic in the pay scale of Rs. 120-240 by an order dated 16.7.1975. He was working in the Tourist Bangalow at Jaisalmer. The pay scale to which the petitioner was appointed was then revised to Rs. 375-90 (sic) by the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised New Pay Scale) Rules, 1976. 3. Thereafter, the Government of Rajasthan transferred all the Tourist Bangalows, Youth Hostels etc. to the Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. with effect from 1.4.1979 and consequently the services of the petitioner were also handed over to the said Corporation. 4. The petitioner was, thereupon given an option to choose the conditions of service on which he was being taken up by the Corporation. It is pertinent to note that the services of the petitioner were factually rendered surplus by reason of the transfer of the Tourist Bangalows of the Government of Rajasthan to the said Corporation. The choice lay with the petitioner to accept the service conditions as offered by the Corporation. The petitioner has factually accepted the offer dated 28.10.1980. Having accepted this option, the petitioner is not entitled now to claim revision of scales as was applicable in the service of the Government of Rajasthan. He, having chosen to be an employee of the Corporation, has ceased to be a Government of Rajasthan employee as such. By a reply to this petition, his claim is, therefore, opposed on this ground. 5. Arguing the case on behalf of the petitioner, it was submitted by the learned counsel relying on a judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly, 1986 SC 1571 that the terms of the offer were unfair and unreasonable and the petitioner was not in an equally bargaining position and, therefore, the terms are not binding on the petitioner. What has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision is as under:- ''The principle deducible from various precedents is that the Courts will not enforce and will, when called upon to do so, strike down an unfair and unreasonable contract, or an unfair and unreasonable clause in a contract, entered into between parties who are not equal in bargaining power. For instance, the above principle will apply where the inequality of bargaining power is the result of the great disparity in the economic strength of the contracting parties. It will apply where the inequality is the result of circumstances, whether of the creation of the parties or not. It will apply to situations in which the weaker party is in a position in which he can obtain goods or services or means of livelihood only upon the terms imposed by the stronger party or go without them. It will also apply where a man has no choice, or rather no meaningful choice, but to give his assent to a contract or to sign on the dotted line in a prescribed standard form or to accept a set of rules as part of the contract, however unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable a clause in that contract or form or rules may be. The types of contracts to which the principle formulated above applies are not contracts which are tainted with illegality but are contracts which contain terms which are so unfair and unreasonable that they shock the conscience of the Court. They are opposed to public policy and require to be adjudged void.'' 6. Relying on this decision it is contended that by the learned counsel that the terms of contract, as offered by the Corporation, therefore, cannot bind the employee. I am unable to accept this submission on behalf of the petitioner. In my opinion, the ratio of the decision cited above is not applicable at all in the present case. In the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation's case the question was of unreasonable and unfair terms of contract, the terms existed at the time when the offer was made. In fact, the terms form part of the offer itself. In the present case, the petitioner was given an option to accept services with the Corporation on the terms and conditions framed by the Corporation and applicable to its existing employees. In fact, the terms form part of the offer itself. In the present case, the petitioner was given an option to accept services with the Corporation on the terms and conditions framed by the Corporation and applicable to its existing employees. Consequences of rejection of such option are not stated. It cannot, therefore, be said that the conditions of service of the Corporation employees were unfair and unreasonable. There is no averment in the petition that the conditions of services framed by the Corporation were unfair and unreasonable, compared to the service conditions of the employees similarly situated in the employment of Rajasthan Government. In the absence of such averment and in the absence of factual proof that the conditions of service are in any manner unfair or unreasonable, it will not be possible for me to hold that the conditions are unfair and they are not binding. There is also no proof on record that the petitioner was not in equally bargaining position as there is no averment or proof for rejection of the offer on the part of the petitioner, which thereafter resulted in his losing the job. In such circumstances, in my opinion, none of the conditions stipulated in the judgment of the Supreme Court exist in the present case and the ratio thereof cannot, therefore, have any application to the facts of the present case. The conditions in that regard are, therefore, rejected. 7. The learned counsel, thereafter, relying on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1993 SCC (L & S) 46 contended that the basic pay of the petitioner cannot be reduced. The facts of the case, on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel are entirely different. In that case, the petitioner was on deputation to the Central Bureau of Investigation and was subsequently absorbed in the Central Bureau of Investigation. On absorption, his basic pay was reduced, though his overall pay became higher than the pay as a deputationist from the State Government. It was, therefore, observed that in such circumstances, basic pay should not be reduced on absorption. In the present case, the petitioner has not been absorbed in the Corporation Services from the State Services. The services of the petitioner were rendered surplus with the State Government and he was offered appointment on certain conditions by the Corporation, which offer was accepted by the petitioner. In the present case, the petitioner has not been absorbed in the Corporation Services from the State Services. The services of the petitioner were rendered surplus with the State Government and he was offered appointment on certain conditions by the Corporation, which offer was accepted by the petitioner. The judgment of the Supreme Court, therefore, is of no avail to the petitioner. I am, therefore, unable to accept the second contention also. 8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no orders as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******