JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - The petitioner in O. J. C. No. 12790 of 1998 has prayed for quashing the letter in Annexure-4 intimating him about rejection of his representation for counting his past service for the purpose of pension and other benefits as well as for a direction to the opposite parties for extending the-service benefits to the petitioner from 3-4-1973, i.e. the date on which he joined the State Bank of India service, and for payment of consequential benefits. The petitioner in O. J. C. No. 13887 of 1997 has prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to reckon his period of deputation to the State Bank of India as permanent service in the Bank and count the said period for the purpose of pensionary and other benefits and also for a direction for extension of his service upto sixty years of age. 2. The case of the petitioner in O. J. C. No. 12790/98 is that he joined the Agriculture Department of Government of Orissa as a Junior Engineer on 7-8-1971 and was subsequently promoted to the grade of Assistant Engineer in 1975. On account of changed policy of the Government of India, the nationalised banks were requited to finance the farmers for agriculture and allied purposes. For the aforesaid purpose the State Bank of India requisitioned the services of officers trained in agriculture and allied subjects from the Government of Orissa. Open advertisements were also made for appointment of such officers from the State Government and their undertakings on contract basis. Pursuant to the requisition of the State Bank of India, Government of Orissa agreed to depute the petitioners along with others to the State Bank of India in its letter dated 24-3-1973. After receipt of the said letter on 27-3-1973, the Bank requested the State Government in the concerned Department to release the petitioner and so also other similarly placed Government servants and the petitioner after being relieved reported on 3-4-1973 in the State Bank of India as Junior Technical Officer in its Regional Office at Bhubaneswar. Thereafter the petitioner was posted to Agricultural Development Branch of the State Bank of India at Balangir. Several other officers were also deputed from the State Government to the State Bank of India and were placed in the said Agricultural Development Branches of the Bank at different places. Thereafter the petitioner was posted to Agricultural Development Branch of the State Bank of India at Balangir. Several other officers were also deputed from the State Government to the State Bank of India and were placed in the said Agricultural Development Branches of the Bank at different places. While the petitioner and similarly placed other officers were continuing, the State Bank Of India decided to have a separate cadre of Technical Officers (Agriculture) inside the Bank and an advertisement was made for filling up the posts of Technical Officer (Agriculture) on regular basis. Pursuant to the said advertisement the petitioner and others applied and being selected in the written test and interview the petitioner joined as Technical Officer (Agriculture in the Bank on 4-3-1978. In the year 1979 the post of Technical Officer (Agriculture) was redesignated as Rural Development Officer. While working as Rural Development Officer, the petitioner made a representation to treat him as such with effect from 3-4-1973, that is, the date on which he joined State Bank service on deputation from the State Government. There was no response from the Management of the Bank to the representation made by the petitioner as well as similarly placed other officers. During this period a writ application was filed in this Court in O. J. C. No. 514 of 1985 by some of the officers and this Court directed to prepone the date of joining of an officer who was on deputation to the State Bank of India and had joined the Bank along with the petitioner on 2-1-1978. Accordingly the petitioner as well as several other similarly placed officers have been treated as Rural Development Officers in the State Bank of India with effect from 2-1-1978. The representation of the petitioner to treat him as Rural Development Officer from the date of his joining in the State Bank of India having been rejected in Annexure-4, the present writ application has been filed. The case of the petitioner in O. J. C. No. 13887/97 is that he was serving in the Directorate of Agriculture and food Production, Orissa, as Agricultural Supervisor and he was sent to State Bank of India on deputation for a period of one year with effect from 6-4-1973 when he joined in the Bank. Subsequently he was selected in a test and joined the State Bank of India on permanent basis. Subsequently he was selected in a test and joined the State Bank of India on permanent basis. The period of his deputation having not been taken into account for the purpose of pensionary and other service benefits, the writ application has been filed. 3. Both the writ applications were heard together and are being disposed of in this common judgment, as points raised in both the cases are same. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners in both the cases have raised the following points : (a) Petitioners were initially working under State Government and were sent to State Bank of India on deputation at the request of the Bank. From the date they joined the Bank they became the employees of the Bank and their services were regulated by the Rules and Regulations of the State Bank of India. (b) Several other officers who were employed on contract basis and subsequently absorbed on permanent basis were extended the benefit of inclusion of the period of service on contract basis for the purpose of pension and other financial benefits, whereas the petitioners have been denied the said benefits. (c) The Office Memorandum of the Department of Finance, Government of Orissa, dated 20-1-1990 speaks of mobility of personnel between State Government Departments and Autonomous bodies for the purpose of counting of service for pension. It is provided in the said memorandum that where a State Government employee borne in pensionable establishment is allowed to be absorbed in an autonomous body, the service rendered by him under the Government shall be allowed to be counted towards pension under the autonomous body irrespective of whether the employee was temporary or permanent under Government. (d) As per Government of India Notification in the Department of Personnel & A. R., dated 29th August, 1984, where a Central Government employee borne on pensionable establishment is allowed to be absorbed in an autonomous body, the service rendered by him under the Government shall be allowed to be counted towards pension under the autonomous body irrespective of whether the employee was temporary or permanent in Government. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in view of the aforesaid two Notifications issued by the Central Government as well as State Government, the period of service rendered by the petitioners under the State Government including the deputation period has to be counted for the purpose of pension as if the petitioners have worked under the autonomous body, that is, State Bank of India. Alternatively they argued that the period of deputation cannot be treated as Government service as the services of the petitioners under the Bank during the said period were regulated by the Rules and Regulations of the State Bank of India and not of the State Government of Orissa. 5. A counter has been filed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 wherein the claim of the petitioners has been denied. It is stated by Shri Ramdas, learned counsel appearing for the State Bank of India, that no doubt the petitioners were brought on deputation to the State Bank of India from the State Government on the request of the Bank, but during the period of deputation they are to be treated as employees of the State Government. The petitioners pursuant to an advertisement applied for appointment as Technical Officer (Agriculture) and on being selected, they were appointed as such. Therefore, such appointments were fresh appointments and their services in the State Bank of India can only be counted from the date they joined as Technical Officer (Agriculture). Shri Ramdas also relied upon a Notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, clarifying the Notification dated 29-8-1984 wherein it is stated that in cases of mobility of personnel between Government and financial institutions, the employees shall not be entitled to count their past service on their permanent absorption for pensionary benefits and they are free to seek terminal benefits as admissible in the relevant rules from the concerned institutions. Relying on the aforesaid Notification as well as submissions made above, Shri Ramdas contended that the petitioners are not entitled to the claim and the period of deputation cannot be taken into account for the purpose of pensionary benefits. 6. Relying on the aforesaid Notification as well as submissions made above, Shri Ramdas contended that the petitioners are not entitled to the claim and the period of deputation cannot be taken into account for the purpose of pensionary benefits. 6. From Annexure-6 to the rejoinder it appears that nationalised banks including Reserve Bank of India and State Bank of India and its subsidiary Banks are to be treated as autonomous bodies for the purpose of grant of pro rata retirement benefits, to the permanent Central Government employees who are absorbed in these Bodies on the terms and conditions envisaged in the said orders. Shri Ramdas did not dispute the said proposition that the State Bank of India is an autonomous body. The Notification of the Government of India dated 29th August, 1984 is a Presidential Order which provides that where a Central Government employee borne on pensionable establishment is allowed to be absorbed in ah autonomous body, the service rendered by him under the Government shall be allowed to be counted towards pension under the autonomous body irrespective of whether the employee was temporary or permanent in Government. The Notification of the State Government of Orissa issued by the Department of Finance is also in the same line. Relying on the said Notifications Shri Ratho learned counsel appearing for petitioners, submitted that the petitioners having been brought to the State Bank of India on deputation from the State Government and having been absorbed on permanent basis in the State Bank of India, they are covered under the said Notification and the period of deputation should be calculated for the purpose of pension. In reply to the said contention, Shri Ramdas submitted that in view of the clarification issued in relation to the Presidential Notification dated 29th August, 1984, the petitioners shall not be entitled to the claim as in the said clarification it is stated that Such employees are not entitled to count their service rendered in Government for the purpose of pension on absorption in the nationalised banks. 7. So far as the first point raised by the learned counsel for petitioners is concerned, it appears from the record that the petitioners were initially serving under the State Government and were brought to the State Bank of India on deputation at the request of the Bank. 7. So far as the first point raised by the learned counsel for petitioners is concerned, it appears from the record that the petitioners were initially serving under the State Government and were brought to the State Bank of India on deputation at the request of the Bank. They continued on deputation till they appeared in a Competitive examination and were absorbed in the State Bank of India. Though they might have been subjected to Rules and Regulations of the State Bank of India during such period of deputation, their lien continued to be with the State Government. So far as the second ground taken by the learned counsel for petitioner is concerned, the cases of the petitioners cannot be equated with that of those employees who had been engaged on contract basis and subsequently absorbed on permanent basis. In cases of such employees, there was no lien and the period of contract service could have been taken into account while computing the total length of service for the purpose of pension. Coming to the third and the fourth grounds taken by the learned counsel for petitioners, it is wortwhile to refer to a judgment of the Patna High Court decided by a Single Bench in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8226 of 1996, decided on 12th February, 1998. The Patna High Court in the aforesaid judgment held that the petitioner while continuing on deputation appeared in a selection test conducted by the State Bank of India for his permanent absorption. Therefore, such appointment is a fresh entry in the Bank and the service in the Bank has to be counted from the date the petitioner worked in the Bank after such appointment pursuant to the selection test. The said judgment of the Single Judge was challenged in appeal before a Division Bench and the view of learned Single Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench. Much reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the term 'absorption'. The petitioners were not absorbed in the State Bank of India service while they were continuing on deputation. They were in fact asked to appear in the selection test and accordingly after they were selected, they were appointed as regular employees of the State Bank of India. The petitioners were not absorbed in the State Bank of India service while they were continuing on deputation. They were in fact asked to appear in the selection test and accordingly after they were selected, they were appointed as regular employees of the State Bank of India. The case of the petitioners not being a case of absorption, the notification of the Government of India relied on by the petitioners has no application to the case of the petitioners. On the other hand, a clarification to the said Notification had been issued as indicated earlier stating that such employees are not entitled to count their service rendered in Government for the purpose of pension and absorption in the nationalised banks including Reserve Bank of India and the State Bank of India and its subsidiaries and other financial institutions, including Life Insurance Corporation of India, etc.. The learned counsel for petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K. Madhavan and another v. Union of India (Vol. 3 Supreme Court Service Rulings 555), annexed to the rejoinder as Annexure-7 which has no application to the facts of the present case. The Apex Court in the said case held that deputation may be regarded as a transfer from one Government department to another. It will be against all rules of service jurisprudence if a Government servant holding a particular post is transferred to the same or an equivalent post in another Government department, the period of his service in the post before his transfer is not taken into consideration in computing his seniority in the transferred post. The transfer cannot wipe but his length of service in the post from which he has been transferred. Here is a case where the petitioners were working under the State Government and they were sent on deputation to the State Bank of India. While continuing on deputation, the petitioners appeared in a selection test conducted by the State Bank of India for regular absorption and having been selected they were appointed afresh. The facts of the case before the Apex Court are clearly distinguishable and therefore, have no application to the facts of the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 6864 of 1979, disposed of on 19-1-1985. The facts of the case before the Apex Court are clearly distinguishable and therefore, have no application to the facts of the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 6864 of 1979, disposed of on 19-1-1985. The case before the Andhra Pradesh High Court relates to employees who had applied for appointment as technical officer in response to a Notification issued by the Bank. They were called for interview and after selection was made, appointment orders were issued on contract basis. This case has no application to the facts of the present case. State Bank of India does not dispute that those who had been engaged on contract basis and subsequently absorbed on permanent basis had been allowed the benefit of contract period to be included for the purpose of computing the total length of service. The case of the petitioners at hand is completely different and they were on deputation from the State Government. 8. In view of the discussions made above, I feel that the notification of the Government of India under Annesure-5 on which much reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners has no application to the case of the petitioners as they were appointed by way of a selection test and were absorbed in the Bank. Moreover, clarification had been issued in respect of the said Notification wherein it was clarified that such employees ate not entitled to count the service rendered in Government for the purpose of pension on absorption in the nationalised banks. A similar view has also been taken by the Patna High Court (supra) and by concurring with the decision of the Patna High Court, I also hold that the appointments of the Petitioners in the State Bank of India have to be counted from the date when they were selected in the selection test and appointed on regular basis. 9. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the writ application and the same are accordingly dismissed. 10. Writ application dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed