Judgment 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order by which a learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 and directed the State Government and its concerned authorities to fix his retiral dues, and to grant him Pension taking into account the service rendered by him under the Bihar State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited. 2. The facts of the case are simple and without controversy. The writ petitioner respondent no. 1 was appointed as a Senior Clerk in the Bihar State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited on 22.8.1967. It is one of the State Governments Corporations that became moribund and were unable for a long time even to pay salaries to their employees. It was in those circumstances that on 20.4.1998 the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 came to work on deputation as an Accountant in the Finance (National Savings) Department of the State Government. It may be noted here that the post of Section Officer in the Corporation, which the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 had reached by that time carried a higher scale of pay than what was admissible to the Accountant in the State Government. But in the Corporation, the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 would not get his salary. Hence, he consented to work in the State Government on deputation in a lower scale of pay. After working on deputation for about a year, the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 was given the offer of absorption on the vacant post of Accountant on a temporary basis on certain conditions vide office order issued under memo no. 246 dated 5.4.1999. One of the conditions was that he would be given the pay scale of the Accountant at the initial stage and the first annual increment would be due on completion of one year from the date of his joining pursuant to absorption. The other condition was that he should gave a declaration in writing that he would not demand from the Department/State Government the pay scale of his parent organizations or his dues etc. there. The writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 gave the written declaration as asked for in which he stated that he would not demand from the Department/State Government the pay scale of his parent organization nor his seniority or dues of any kind there. He was then appointed as an Accountant in the aforementioned Department. there. The writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 gave the written declaration as asked for in which he stated that he would not demand from the Department/State Government the pay scale of his parent organization nor his seniority or dues of any kind there. He was then appointed as an Accountant in the aforementioned Department. About four years later, he superannuated on 30.11.2003. The period of his service with the State Government being less than ten years, the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 was not entitled to any pension in terms of Government Resolution No. 3014, dated 31.7.1980. He was, accordingly, paid his G.P.F. amount and the retiral dues under other heads for his service with the State Government. 3. The writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 made an application making the request to take into account the period of service rendered by him under the Corporation for the purpose of his retiral dues, including pension. The request was rejected by Officer order issued under Memo No. 632, dated 12.6.2004. This led him to come to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6037 of 2004 seeking a direction to the State Government and its authorities to take into account the service rendered by him under the Corporation for fixing his retiral dues, including pension. The writ petition was allowed by judgment and order coming under appeal. 4. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition relying upon an earlier decision dated 27.11.2001 in Ramashish Rajak V/s. State & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No 11957 of 2001) which in turn had followed the decision dated 31.8.2000 in Prem Prakash V/s. State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 12048 of 1998). Apart from the two decisions, the learned Single Judge, accepted the plea made on behalf of the respondent no. 1 that the Bihar State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited being a State Government Undertaking was an instrumentality of the State and, therefore, the service rendered at the Corporation must be taken into account for the purpose of determining the retiral dues and the grant of pension. 5. Here it may be noted that both the decisions relied upon in the judgment and order coming under appeal were in cases oi employees who came to the State Government from different Corporations under similar circumstances. Prem Prakash came to the State Government from the Bihar State Dairy Development Corporation and Ramashish Rajak from the Bihar State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited. Prem Prakash came to the State Government from the Bihar State Dairy Development Corporation and Ramashish Rajak from the Bihar State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited. Both the decisions were by learned Single Judges. Against the decision in Prem Prakash, the State Government preferred an appeal being L.P.A. No. 601 of 2001 which is admitted for hearing but there is no stay of the operation of the judgment appealed against. The other decision in Ramashish Rajak became final since no appeal was preferred against it. 6. Mr. R.K. Dutta, S.C. IV submitted that the tacts In Prem Prakash were en-case and the case of Ramashish Rajak was wrongly decided following certain observations made in "Prem Prakash that were both unwarranted and untenable Prem Prakash had claimed time-bound promotion, gratuity and pension on the basis of "continuity of service" from the Corporation to the State Government and all his claims were allowed by the decision in his case. Mr. Dutta pointed out that the decision in Prem Prakash stated the facts of the case as follows: "The Corporation fell in difficulties and the State Government decided to wind up the Corporation. In that view of the matter, it created three categories of employees for deployment of the work force. The first category comprised of those employees who were absorbed in the Milk Federation, the second category comprised of those employees whose services were transferred to the State Government with continuity of service, vide order of the State Government bearing Memo No. 2452, dated 13.5.1986, it was Annexure 5 to the petitioners earlier writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 12545 of 1993. The petitioner belonged to this category, and his services were accordingly transferred to the State Government with continuity of service and he started working as Dairy Research Officer with effect from 15.8.1987 in the Animal Husbandry Department (Dairy, Government of Bihar." (emphasis added) 7 Mr. Dutta argued that the service of Prem Prakash was transferred to the State Government expressly with continuity of service as per the decision of the State Government. On the contrary, the petitioner was absorbed subject to a written declaration given by him that he would not demand from the Government the pay scale of the parent organisation or his others dues there. On the contrary, the petitioner was absorbed subject to a written declaration given by him that he would not demand from the Government the pay scale of the parent organisation or his others dues there. He further submitted that the claim of Prem Prakash with regard to time-bound promotion was allowed tallowing an earlier decision of the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4616 of 1995 but while dealing with his claim for pension, the decision observed that "since the Corporation was an instrumentality of the State Government, and the Government held its entire share, it went without saying that the State Government had taken over the services of the Corporations employees with the intent to grant them the benefit of past services rendered at the Corporation". The observation in Prem Prakash that was in the context of the facts of that case (especially the continuity of service) was misconstrued and misapplied in the case of Ramashish Rajak. In Ramashish Rajak. simply on the basis of those observations in Prem Prakash, it was held that the later case was totally covered by the earlier judgment and Ramashish Rajak too was directed to be given pensionary benefits counting his service under the Corporation. 8. Mr. Dutta strongly submitted that a Government Corporation is taken as an instrumentality or agency of the State within the meaning of Article 12 for matters dealt with in Part III of the Constitution. Otherwise, the difference and separation between the Government and a Government Corporation/Company are well established. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in (i) H.E.C.M. Union V/s. State of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 82 and (ii) A.K. Bindal & Anr. V/s. Union of India & Ors. (2003)5 SCC 163 , Paragraphs 14 to. 17. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 defended the decision coming under appeal and in its support relied upon a Supreme Court decision in Kapila Hingorani V/s. State of Bihar (2003)6 SCC 1 [: 2003(3) PLJR (SC)17, paragraph 71. (2003)5 SCC 163 , Paragraphs 14 to. 17. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 defended the decision coming under appeal and in its support relied upon a Supreme Court decision in Kapila Hingorani V/s. State of Bihar (2003)6 SCC 1 [: 2003(3) PLJR (SC)17, paragraph 71. In paragraph 71 of the decision, it is observed as follows: "The States of India are welfare States though having regard to the constitutional provisions adumbrated in the Constitution of India and in particular Part XIV thereto laying down the Directive Principles of the State Policy and Part IVA laying down the fundamental duties are bound to preserve the practice to maintain the human dignity." 10. Mr. Dutta submitted that the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1, and many others like him, were absorbed on different posts in the State Government precisely for the reason that the State Government realised its responsibility to mitigate the hardships faced by the employees of the sick and non-functioning Corporations and accordingly tried to accommodate as many employees of the different Corporations as was possible for it. But it would be wholly unjust and unreasonable to saddle the State Government also with the liability of payment of life long pension to all those employees on the basis of zheir services rendered under different Corporations. It would almost amount to punishing the State Government for actions taken by it as a Welfare State. He further pointed out that paragraph 74 of the decision in Kapila Hingorani expressly left open the issue of separation between the Government and a Government Corporation. Paragraph 74 of the decision is as follows: "We, however, hasten to add that we do not intend to lay down a law, as at present advised, that the State is directly or vicariously liable to pay salaries, remunerations of the employees of the public sector undertakings or the Government companies in all situations. We, as explained hereinbefore, only say that the Sate cannot escape its liability when a human rights problem of such magnitude involving the starvation deaths and/or suicide by the employees has taken place by reason of non-payment of salary to the employees of public sector undertakings for such a long time. We, as explained hereinbefore, only say that the Sate cannot escape its liability when a human rights problem of such magnitude involving the starvation deaths and/or suicide by the employees has taken place by reason of non-payment of salary to the employees of public sector undertakings for such a long time. We are not issuing any direction as against the State of Jharkhand as no step had admittedly been taken by the Central Government in terms of Section 65 of the State Reorganisation Act and furthermore as only four public sector undertakings have been transferred to the State of Jharkhand in respect whereof the petitioner does not make any grievance." 11. Mr. Dutta further submitted that following the decision in Kapila Hingorani, the petitioner like other employees of the Agro Industries Development Corporation was paid part of his arrears of salary and should also be paid his Provident Fund/Pension etc. under the provisions of The Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. He added that the Corporation was covered by the provisions of the Act and the scheme of pension framed by the Provident Fund Directorate constituted under the Act applied to its employees. He also stated that as per the directions of the Supreme Court in Kapila Hingorani, arrears of the employers/employees contributions to the provident fund were being paid in instalments and the petitioner like other employees should get his provident fund/pension dues from the Provident Fund Directorate. 12. I find the submissions of Mr. Dutta well founded. It would be a grave error to consider the service rendered under the Corporation as Government service. As submitted by Mr. Dutta, a Corporation is held to be an instrumentality or agency of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution and consequently, it is made answerable, like the State, for violation of any fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution. But the parallel between the Government and the Corporation ends there and a Corporation is certainly not at par with the Government in matters relating to service conditions, including payment of retiral dues and pension to its employees. The necessary corollary, therefore, is that the service rendered under the Corporation cannot be deemed to be service under the State Government and cannot be added to the latter for computation of retiral dues and grant of pension. 13. The necessary corollary, therefore, is that the service rendered under the Corporation cannot be deemed to be service under the State Government and cannot be added to the latter for computation of retiral dues and grant of pension. 13. An appeal from the decision in Prem Prakash remains pending before the Court and, therefore, it would not be proper to make any comment on the decision in that case. Suffice it to say that the facts in Prem Prakash were materially different from the facts of the present case and that decision has no application to the case of the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1. The other decision in Ramashish Rajak, I am afraid to say was decided wrongly. 14. In the light of the discussions made above, I come to the irresistible conclusion that the claim of the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 to add the service rendered by him under the Corporation as part of his service with the State Government for the purpose of retiral dues and pension is unfounded and cannot be allowed. The decision of the Writ Court coming under appeal is set aside and the writ petition filed by respondent no. 1 is dismissed. 15. In the result, this appeal is allowed but with no order as to costs. Rekha Kumari 16 I agree.