JUDGMENT - CHAPALGAONKER N.P., J.:---Heard. 2. This group of writ petitions filed by the employees of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation and Nanded Waghala Municipal Corporation governed under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, raise a question about the age of superannuation. On 29th May, 1998, the Government of Maharashtra took a decision to raise the superannuation age of the employees of the State Government from 58 to 60. The said resolution in para 6, stated that the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1988 shall be deemed to have been amended for the purposes of this Government Resolution and the said Rules shall be amended in due course. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Counsel for both the Corporations. Besides them, the learned Advocate General addressed us on behalf of the State Government, which is respondent in all these writ petitions. 4. Following contentions are raised in these petitions: (I) Aurangabad Municipal Corporation has adopted the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and any amendment in the said Rules will automatically be applicable to the servants of the Municipal Corporation and the Municipal Corporation by a resolution has no right to say that a particular amendment made by the State Government will not be followed by it because of the blanket adaptation of rules framed by the State Government. (II) Nanded Waghala Municipal Corporation is a new Corporation and in the absence of any rules framed by the Corporation, the employees of the Corporation would stand governed by the rules framed by the Government for the similar purpose. (III) Some of the employees, particularly teachers who were working in the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, came to be transferred and absorbed in the service of the Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad. They are assured by the terms and conditions of their transfer and absorption that the service conditions applicable to them will not be altered to their detriment after their absorption in the Municipal Corporation. It is contended that by the Government directions issued on 29th May, 1998, the age of superannuation of all Zilla Parishad employees have stood enhanced to 60 years and, therefore, this benefit should also be extended to the employees who were formerly the employees of Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad and have now become the employees of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation because of their transfer. (IV) Since the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation has adopted the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, any amendment in the said rules would automatically apply to the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation also. Even in the absence of the statutory amendment of the rules the Government decision taken in this behalf would also be applicable to Aurangabad Municipal Corporation. 5. Before we deal with the submissions made by the Counsel for the petitioners and reply by the respondents, we wish to clarify certain positions about existence of the rules. The Government of Maharashtra has on 1st June, 1988 approved regulations regarding pension and other benefits framed by the Municipal Corporation of the City of Aurangabad, under section 465 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. In the said Regulations, Regulation No. 10 reads as under: "(1) Pension and other benefits shall be given as per provision of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 amended from time to time subject to following-" Relying on this clause, it is submitted before us that the clause "Pension and other benefits" includes the age of retirement also. 6. Clause (2) of the said Regulation reads as under: "(2) The provision of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 shall apply subject to the exceptions which are detailed in Schedule "B" appended to these Regulations." This clearly indicates that it is not that all the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 have been made applicable but they have been made applicable with certain exceptions as detailed in Schedule B. We have also to take a note of the difference in the languages used in two clauses. In the first clause, we find that the words "amended from time to time" have been used whereas the said words are absent in the second clause. In the whole scheme of these regulations read in the light of Schedule "B", we find that the adoption of the Rules framed by the State Government is not blanket and the Corporation has applied them in part only. In the whole scheme of these regulations read in the light of Schedule "B", we find that the adoption of the Rules framed by the State Government is not blanket and the Corporation has applied them in part only. Therefore, in the absence of any clause like "amended from time to time", which appears in Clause (1) of Regulation 10, in other parts of the Regulations, we will have to presume that the rule making authority had applied its mind to the set of Rules which were prevalent at the time when these Rules were adopted and there is no promise in any way in these Regulations that any amendment made by the State Government shall automatically apply to the servants of the Municipal Corporation, except about the pension and other benefits. 7. This takes us to examine the extent and scope of the clause "pension and Other Benefits" used in the Regulations. The words "other benefits" occurring in this clause have something to do with the pension. All pensionary benefits or the terminal benefits may be covered by this group of words but we do not accept the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that even the age of retirement would be covered by the words "other benefits". Pension and other benefits are payable to a servant at the time of his retirement. His retirement may be on superannuation, may be on application for voluntary retirement and may be compulsory, if rules so provide. Therefore, the words "Other Benefits" have nothing to do with the age of retirement. The age of retirement would only indicate the date on which the employee would stand retired. But the age of superannuation is not a benefit. Therefore, by virtue of the Clause (1) of Regulation No. 10, an employee of the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation is entitled to have the same pension and same benefits as are receivable by a Government servant under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 at the time of his retirement. But this does not help the submission of the petitioner that this also regulates the age of superannuation. 8. But this does not help the submission of the petitioner that this also regulates the age of superannuation. 8. The question whether the expression "Pensionary Benefits" which were protected by the Government Rules includes the age of retirement also, was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of (J. K. State Road Transport Corporation, Jammu and Kashmir v. Om Prakash and others)1, reported in J.T. 1998(5) S.C. 322 and the Supreme Court held that the expression "Pensionary Benefits" should be restricted to mean the amount of pension or other incidental benefits but should not include the age of retirement and it found that the age of retirement can be changed as it is not included in the expression "pensionary benefits". 9. Smt. Ansari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of some of the petitioners who were formerly employees of Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad and consequent to their transfer and absorption in Aurangabad Municipal Corporation have become the employees of the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, invited our attention to "GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS TO BE IMPOSED WHILE PERMITTING TRANSFER OF PRIMARY SCHOOLS TO MUNICIPALS BY ZILLA PARISHADS IN MARATHWADA REGION" and referred to Clause (9) of the said Terms and Conditions. The part relevant for the purposes of these writ petitions has quoted below for ready reference: "The terms and conditions of service applicable to such teachers being transferred, while they were serving under the Zilla Parishad, should not, in any way, be altered by the Municipal Council to their disadvantage, after their transfer to the Municipal Council. While determining the pension due to the teachers on their retirement, the previous service rendered by them under the Zilla Parishad and/or Government shall be considered as qualifying service for the purpose of pension". A plain reading of this clause goes to show that whatever terms and conditions were applicable to such teachers who are transferred to Municipal Corporation, at the time of their transfers, cannot be altered to the detriment of such servants after their transfer. There is absolutely no assurance in those terms and conditions that if any further benefit is extended to the employees of the Zilla Parishad, even the servants who are now transferred to Aurangabad Municipal Corporation would stand entitled to receive those benefits also. There is absolutely no assurance in those terms and conditions that if any further benefit is extended to the employees of the Zilla Parishad, even the servants who are now transferred to Aurangabad Municipal Corporation would stand entitled to receive those benefits also. When a servant chooses to be transferred or is transferred from one employer to another employer, his service conditions as were applicable at the time of the transfer may be protected but by no stretch of imagination, it may be held that he is entitled to both the benefits-the benefit of new employment and the benefit of previous employment. This would be against the principles of service jurisprudence unless he is specifically assured by the terms and conditions of his transfer and absorption to that effect. 10. In Writ Petition No. 3356 of 1998, petitioner was formerly a servant of the State Government. When his services were taken over by the Aurangabad Municipal Council and then he was transferred to Aurangabad Municipal Corporation. Smt. Ansari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, relies on a Government Resolution dated 31st March, 1983, which is at Exh. "F" of the compilation of the said writ petition. In Clause (6) of the said Resolution, an employee transferred to the Corporation and governed by this Resolution, is assured that the service conditions applicable to him will be protected and he is further assured that he is also entitled for the protection under the provisions of Bombay Re-organisation Act, 1960. If a Resolution protects the service conditions, it presupposes that the Resolution intends to protect the service conditions as are in existence at the time of issuance of this Circular. There is nothing in this Circular which assures the employee that even the future benefits as would be applicable to the Government servants are also protected. That may be the case of a person if somebody is lent on a temporary basis to a local body and continues to be governed by the Government rules but this is not the case of this petitioner. 11. We may mention that both, Aurangabad and Nanded Waghala Municipal Corporations have specifically passed resolutions that they do not wish to make the extension of superannuation age applicable to their employees. Such specific resolutions are on record and these resolutions have not been assailed on the ground of incompetency or jurisdiction. 12. 11. We may mention that both, Aurangabad and Nanded Waghala Municipal Corporations have specifically passed resolutions that they do not wish to make the extension of superannuation age applicable to their employees. Such specific resolutions are on record and these resolutions have not been assailed on the ground of incompetency or jurisdiction. 12. Nanded-Waghala Municipal Corporation is a new Municipal Corporation and we told that the rules are still under the process of making. In the absence of any specific rules framed by such Corporation, the provisions of section 493 read with Clause (5) of Appendix 4 would make the position clear. All employees shall stand governed by the rules by which they were governed hencebefore. Even assuming that such a specific provision is not there under section 493 if an employee is governed by a rule and that rule has not been specifically amended, substituted, then he will be continued to be governed by that provision. It is not the case of any of the petitioners that the age of retirement was 60 under the previous rules by which they were governed and, therefore, they are not benefited by these provisions. 13. In the result, all the petitions fail and are rejected summarily. Petitions dismissed.