JUDGMENT - A.A. DESAI, J.:-The question involved herein relates to the ambit and scope of the term "absorbed post" occurring in the Goa, Daman and Diu (Absorbed Employees) Act, 1965 (the Act of 1965). Facts for raising the question are thus :- The petitioner was appointed on 1-4-1952 as 'Assalariado" (daily wager) in the erstwhile Administration of Portuguese. On 19-12-1961 Goa got liberated from the Rule of Portuguese. On 27-12-1961 the institution where the petitioner was working was abolished. On 28-1-1963, he was appointed as Surveillance Worker, (subsequently designated as Basic Health Worker) in the National Malaria Irradication Service. After attaining the age of superannuation on 1-1-1985, the petitioner retired. 2. The petitioner, claimed that he is entitled to the benefit of the service which he has rendered under the erstwhile Portuguese Administration in view of provisions under the Act of 1965 which came into force w.e.f. 1-2-1966. Undisputedly, there is no express order absorbing the petitioner in the post of Surveillance Worker which he held from 28-1-1963. Even otherwise, there is no protection granted to him of the then existing pay as defined under sub-clause (c) of Clause 2 of the Rules known as the Goa, Daman and Diu (Absorbed Employees Conditions of Service) Rules, 1965. Apart from the delay and laches, the controversy revolves around the term "absorbed post'. 3. The definition as provided under Clause (b) of section 2 of the Act of 1965 which reads thus :- " (b) "absorbed post" means a civil service or post which existed under the former Portuguese Administration in Goa, Daman and Diu immediately after the 20th day of December, 1961." The argument of the learned Counsel Mr. Sonak is that he held the post of "Assalariado" which was the post existing prior to 20th December, 1961 and, as such, he could be held as a holder of absorbed post. We find this submission as misconceived. 4. The Act of 1965 has been brought into being with a specific purpose, as explained in the preamble which reads thus :- "An Act to provide for the regulation of the conditions of service of persons absorbed for service in connection with the administration of the Union territory of Goa, Daman and Diu and for matters connected therewith." (Emphasis supplied by us). It unequivocally indicates the absorption has a relation with the services in the Union Administration. It unequivocally indicates the absorption has a relation with the services in the Union Administration. Even if under the Union Administration, the petitioner held the post of Surveillance Worker, it was not the post which he held earlier to the liberation of Goa i.e. 20th December, 1961. The absorbed post has a definite connotation. It means service on the post existed prior to 20-12-61 under the former Portuguese Administration and has been absorbed under the Union Administration. Contention that whatever post, held prior to 20th December, 1961 irrespective of its subsequent relation would be within the import of the definition as 'absorbed post is totally erroneous. 5. Even otherwise sub-clause (a) of section 2 of the Act of 1965 defines 'absorbed employee' which means :- "a person who immediately before the 20th day of December, 1961, was holding an absorbed post and who on and after that date either served or has been serving in that or any other post in connection with the administration of the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu or in any of the Departments of the Central Government." Even this definition does not render any support to the petitioner. Explicitly it indicates continuity of service either in the same or absorbed post. Undisputedly before 20th December, 1961 the petitioner was holding the post which was not absorbed. His appointment in 1963 was fresh and with a post having no equation with earlier services or post. 6. The Supreme Court had occasion to deal with similar question. Taking into account the definition of 'absorbed employee' and 'absorbed post', it is held in (Ramakant Shripad Sinal Advalpalkar v. Union of India and others)1, 1991 Supp. (2) S.C.C. 733 :-- "These provisions in the interpretation clause merely indicate that an "absorbed employee" should have held the "absorbed post immediately before December 20, 1961, and that it did not detract from that position if subsequently he was serving in any other, post in connection with the administration of the Union Territory of Goa. It is erroneous to construe that in such circumstances the 'other' post would also become an "absorbed post" in relation to such person. He would continue to be "absorbed employee" only in relation to the post he held immediately prior to December 20, 1961. It is erroneous to construe that in such circumstances the 'other' post would also become an "absorbed post" in relation to such person. He would continue to be "absorbed employee" only in relation to the post he held immediately prior to December 20, 1961. There is no substance in the second contention either." In view of this, we do not find any legal foundation to the claim of the petitioner. 7. Mr. Sonak tried to urge that one Mr. Nagvekar who was similarly situated was granted the benefit under the Act of 1965 for the purpose of pension. What is revealed during the course of argument of Mr. Bharne, the learned Government Pleader is that decision in the case of Mr. Nagvekar was erroneous. As such, through judicial exercise, benefit cannot be extended to the petitioner on the same premise. 8. Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed.