JUDGMENT By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks pensionary benefits which could be made available to her deceased husband immediately on his retirement in the year, 1984. According to the petitioner, her husband was a permanent employee of the respondent No. 1 and was later on sent on deputation with the respondent No. 2. According to the petitioner, after the retirement, the petitioner's husband was entitled to the pensionary benefits and as the same were not given to him, the petitioner being his widow is entitled to all the benefits. The respondent No. 2 contends that the petitioner was a permanent employee of the respondent No. 1 but his services were transferred to the respondent No. 2 under the directions of the State Government. They submit that such transfer could be treated as deputation if such a right was exercised by the Municipality. They submit that the respondent No. 2 repeatedly asked the respondent No. 1 for repatriation of such people but the said request was turned down by the Municipality under Annexure-R-1/3 on 24.11.80. They submit that petitioner's husband did not become a member of pension scheme, therefore the pension provisions are not applicable to him. In the alternative, they submit that on the date of retirement, petitioner's husband was a permanent employee of the respondent No. 2, therefore the respondent No. 2 alone is answerable to the claim of the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 submits that though the Pension Rules were published in the year 1970 but the respondent No. 2 opted and adopted the said rules with effect from 1987 and only thereafter, the pension scheme was made applicable to its employees. They submit that as petitioner's husband retired in the year 1984 itself, the benefit of 1987 Rules cannot be extended in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as, on transfer of petitioner's services from respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2, the service conditions remained unaltered it must be held that the petitioner's husband was entitled to pension. He further submits that because of some ignorance or lack of know ledge, if petitioner's husband could not become a member of the pension scheme of the respondent No. 1, the just and legitimate claim of the petitioner cannot be denied. The respondents have reiterated their submissions as made in the return itself. He further submits that because of some ignorance or lack of know ledge, if petitioner's husband could not become a member of the pension scheme of the respondent No. 1, the just and legitimate claim of the petitioner cannot be denied. The respondents have reiterated their submissions as made in the return itself. Undisputedly, the petitioner's husband was not a member of the pension scheme. If the person was not a member of the pension scheme and did not make his contribution under the said scheme then the scheme could not be made applicable to him. If the said scheme was not applicable to the deceased husband of the petitioner then even after his retirement from the respondent No. 1 itself he would not have been entitled to any pension. The respondent No. 1 has filed a list of 21 pages containing as many as 605 names to show that those persons adopted the Pension Scheme. If 600 persons knew about the pension scheme then it cannot be held or presumed in favour of the petitioner's husband that he was ignorant about the said scheme. As the petitioner's husband did not opt for the pension scheme, the respondent No. 1 is certainly justified in saying that they are not answerable to the claim of the petitioner. So far as the stand of respondent No. 2 is concerned that also appears to be justified. If there was no pension scheme or pension rules applicable in the year 1984 then a person retired in the year 1984 itself cannot claim the pension in view of the adoptation or applicability of some rules from a future date. The present is a hard case but the legal position is contrary to the interest of the petitioner. The petition deserves to and is accordingly dismissed.