Judgment S.N. Jha, CJ.-This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.09.2005 in Civil Writ Petition No. 4044/2001 allowing the writ petition of the respondent. The respondent filed the writ petition seeking declaration that the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. i.e., the appellant herein had no authority to deduct the amount equivalent to pension from his salary, and that he was entitled to salary of Rs. 2,480/-on the date of his appointment under the appellant. The respondent also sought consequential correction in his pay fixation and payment of arrears of salary and allowances, provident fund etc. Facts of the case, briefly, are as follows : 2. The respondent, a Junior Accountant in Directorate of Accounts and Treasuries under the State Government in the scale of Rs. 1140-2250 was deputed to the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. (in short the Corporation or RIICO) vide order of the Chief Accounts Officer, Government of Rajasthan dated 110.1984. Pursuant the said order, the respondent joined the corporation on 210.1984. A proposal was initiated for his absorption on the post of Accountant in the scale of Rs. 1400-2825. The case of the respondent is that he did not apply for such absorption and the move was suo-motu. On 26.09.1988 an office order was issued which runs as under:- "OFFICE ORDER I The Management of the Corporation is pleased to sanction creation of one post of Accountant in Finance Division in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2825 from the date the post is filled in. II The Management of the Corporation is pleased to absorb Shri J.P. Gaur, Accountant on the post of Accountant in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2825 from the date he joins duty after seeking premature retirement, from Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, on the following conditions : 1. His pay will be protected in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2825 as per rules. 2. He will be given seniority in the cadre of Accountant as per rules." 3. As per terms of the aforesaid order, on 27.09.1988 the respondent made an application to the Director, Treasuries and Accounts seeking voluntary retirement from Government service under Rule 244(1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules with effect from 26.09.1988 afternoon. On 012.1988 formal order accepting the respondents offer of voluntary retirement with effect from 26.09.1988 afternoon was issued. As per terms of the aforesaid order, on 27.09.1988 the respondent made an application to the Director, Treasuries and Accounts seeking voluntary retirement from Government service under Rule 244(1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules with effect from 26.09.1988 afternoon. On 012.1988 formal order accepting the respondents offer of voluntary retirement with effect from 26.09.1988 afternoon was issued. In the meantime on 26.09.1988 itself , the respondent had submitted his joining on the post of Accountant in anticipation of acceptance of voluntary retirement and the joining was accepted. On 30.01.1989 an order fixing his pay in the scale of Rs. 1400-2825 at Rs. 2200- with effect from 26.09.1988 was issued. It transpired in course of hearing that the pay was revised as a result of pay revision but that aspect has no bearing on the controversy involved in this case and, therefore, we do not propose to state those facts in this order. The respondent retired on superannuation from service of corporation on 31.08.1994. 4. The case of the appellant-corporation is that the respondent had at no stage made any grievance as to pay fixation after deducting the amount of pension received by him on retirement from the Government service. On 09.09.1992, a general order was also issued laying down the manner of fixation of pay of retired personnel on re-employment in terms of which the pay of the employee after retirement was to be fixed at the last pay drawn less pension. The respondent made no grievance against the said order at any stage either. After over 12 years of pay fixation vide order dated 30.01.1989 and seven years of his retirement he filed the writ petition which could not be entertained on grounds of delay and latches. 5. On merit the case of the appellant is that it was a case of re-employment of a retired Government servant, and having been re-employed, the pay of the respondent had to be fixed after deducting the amount of pension and the respondent cannot claim the salary of the post of Accountant de hors pension received by him from the State Government muchless after retirement and inordinate delay of seven years therefrom. 6. The case of the respondent, on the other hand, is that he was absorbed in the service of corporation on terms and conditions as mentioned in the order dated 26.09.1988 and, therefore, he was entitled to salary etc. 6. The case of the respondent, on the other hand, is that he was absorbed in the service of corporation on terms and conditions as mentioned in the order dated 26.09.1988 and, therefore, he was entitled to salary etc. as per those terms and conditions. 7. The crux of the dispute lies in the question whether appointment of the respondent vide order dated 26.09.1988 was by way of re-employment or absorption. If it was re-employment, in terms of Rule 337 of the Rajasthan Service Rules on which heavy reliance was placed by Counsel for the appellant, the pay of the respondent on re-employment had to be fixed after deducting the amount equivalent to pension. 8. Rule 337 provides that no Government servant, civil or military, may retire with the view of being re-employed and drawing pension in addition to pay, whether in the general service or in the service of any local fund. In-fact under Rule 338, a person, who was formerly in the civil or military employment of any Government of India obtains re-employment, whether temporarily or permanently in the Government service or in the service of a local fund is required to declare to the appointing authority the amount of any gratuity bonus or pension granted to him in respect of previous employment. 9. If , on the other hand, the order dated 26.09.1988 is held to be order of absorption, it would follow that the respondent would be entitled to salary etc. as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the order. 10. The answer to the question is not difficult to find. Apart from the fact that the order specifically mentioned the term absorb (which may not be conclusive), the order stated that on such absorption the pay of the respondent would be protected in the scale of Rs. 1400-2825 as per rules, which must be regarded as a condition of absorption i.e., appointment of the respondent. The respondent brought on record the extract from file No. A.1. (8) 95/1981 in which the proposal for his absorption was examined and finally approved. It may be useful to qoute from the extract, so far relevant, to know the mind of the authorities in appointing the respondent in the corporation. The extract runs as under:- "As desired, the case of absorption of Shri Jagdish Prasad Gaur, on the post of Accountant in the Pay Scale of Rs. It may be useful to qoute from the extract, so far relevant, to know the mind of the authorities in appointing the respondent in the corporation. The extract runs as under:- "As desired, the case of absorption of Shri Jagdish Prasad Gaur, on the post of Accountant in the Pay Scale of Rs. 1400-2825 is submitted as follows :We have 30 posts of Accountant at Head Office and Unit offices. As per Recruitment and Selection Rules of the Corporation, the mode of Recruitment is 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by Selection. The qualification and experience prescribed for the post of Accountant is placed below for perusal please. (233/C). Shri Jagdish Prasad Gaur is on deputation from State Government since 210.1984 on the post of Accountant. He is Junior Accountant in the Government in the pay scale of Rs. 1140-2250 and is drawing pay of Rs. 2200/-with next grade increment on 01.03.1989. His date of birth is 09.08.1936. Bio Date is also placed for perusal please. (232/C). Accordingly, if approved, we may 1. Createone post of Accountant in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2825 in Finance Division from the day the post is filled in; 2. Absorb Shri Jagdish Prasad Gaur on the post of Accountant, by protecting his pay after he seeks retirement from State Government. 3. Subject to approval of 1 and 2 above, Shri Gaur may be asked to seek retirement from State Government in case he opts for absorption in the services of RIICO. He may be informed that his pay will be protected but seniority in the cadre will be considered from the date he joins on absorption. .4. As thereis ban from State Government on filling up the posts by direct recruitment and creation of posts; the matter may be taken up before working Committee of the Board for its approval expost facto. .(i) for creation of post; appointing Shri Gaur on absorption in the service of corporation from pre page. .(ii) relating the age and qualification prescribed for the post. (iii) protection of his pay in the Scale. Submitted for kind perusal and orders please." After certain queries, the proposal was accepted by the Executive Director and the Chairman cum Director on 7/8.09.1988. Formal order was thereafter issued on 26.09.1988. 11. .(ii) relating the age and qualification prescribed for the post. (iii) protection of his pay in the Scale. Submitted for kind perusal and orders please." After certain queries, the proposal was accepted by the Executive Director and the Chairman cum Director on 7/8.09.1988. Formal order was thereafter issued on 26.09.1988. 11. It would appear on a bare reading of the above that the authorities clearly intended to absorb the respondent in the service of the corporation on the post of Accountant in the scale of Rs. 1400-2825 giving him pay protection. The respondent at the relevant time was in the scale of Rs. 1140-2250 and drawing the pay of Rs. 2200/-as Junior Accountant but was proposed to be absorbed on the post of Accountant in the scale of 1400-2825 giving him protection of pay drawn by him as an employee of the State Government. The order cannot be construed as order of re-employment. It is true that order was to take effect on the respondents retirement from the service of the State Government and the respondent accordingly, did apply for voluntary retirement which was accepted by the Government with effect from 26.09.1988 but this cannot be construed as making his appointment as re-employment. As a deputationist, the respondent held lien on the post of Junior Accountant in the State Government. He, therefore, could not be absorbed without severing his relationship with the State Government and that is why condition was imposed in the appointment order that the absorption would be conditional on his seeking pre-mature retirement. It is to be kept in mind that the respondent joined the post of Accountant pursuant to the said order on 26.09.1988 afternoon itself and on the next date i.e., 27.09.1988 made an application seeking voluntary retirement under Rule 244(1) of the Service Rules. The fact that the offer of voluntary retirement was accepted with effect from 26.09.1988 afternoon does not materially change the position in as much as the respondent already stood absorbed on the post of Accountant subject to his taking voluntary retirement. It is also to be keep in his mind that his pay on the post of Accountant on such absorption was also fixed with effect from 29.09.1988 itself . In these premises, we are satisfied that it was a case of absorption and not re-employment. 12. It is also to be keep in his mind that his pay on the post of Accountant on such absorption was also fixed with effect from 29.09.1988 itself . In these premises, we are satisfied that it was a case of absorption and not re-employment. 12. Reference may be made to the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Service (Recruitment and Selection) Rules, 1974 (in short the Recruitment Rules), Rule 4 whereof provides for method of appointment to the post in the corporation. The rule lays down :- "METHOD OF APPOINTMENTS TO POSTS: Appointments to various posts in the service shall be made by direct recruitment or by selection or partly by direct recruitment or partly by selection as provided in Col.3 of the Schedule. Provided that - .(1) In the absence of availability of suitable candidates, the corporation may decide whether a particular post shall be filled in by direct recruitment or by selection as the case may be. .(2) The corporation may fill in a post temporarily by appointing thereto, (a) an employee of the Central or State Government or a Government. Undertaking on deputation, on such terms and conditions as may be agreed to between the corporation and the lending authority (b) a retired employee of the Central or State Government, on such terms and conditions as may be deemed proper, or (c) a person, who is considered eminently suitable and useful on contract basis for a specified period which may be extended by the corporation if considered necessary." 13. On a bare reading it is apparent that appointment to a post in the corporation may be made by direct recruitment or selection. The post may also be filled in temporarily by appointing an employee of the Central or State Government or a Government. Undertaking on deputation, or a retired employee of the Central or State Government. Apparently, the appointment of the respondent was in terms of Part (b) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 which provides for temporary appointment of the retired employee of the Central or State Government. 14. Undertaking on deputation, or a retired employee of the Central or State Government. Apparently, the appointment of the respondent was in terms of Part (b) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 which provides for temporary appointment of the retired employee of the Central or State Government. 14. It may be clarified here that normally appointment of retired employee of the Central or State Government would be re-employment but so far as the respondent is concerned, as held above, in the fact and circumstances, in view of the decision to absorb him, apparently considering his suitability for the post of Accountant as he was already serving the corporation on deputation, his case cannot be termed as re-employment. Being an appointment made in terms of Rule 4(2) (b), the appointment had to be on the terms and conditions as deemed proper. In the case of the respondent, the authorities decided to give him pay protection as a condition of appointment/absorption and they cannot be permitted to resile therefrom. It was not a condition of appointment that the amount equivalent to pension drawn by him as retired Government servent would be deducted from the salary. 15. In Comptroller & Auditor General of India & Ors. vs. Farid Sattar, 2000 (4) SCC 13 , it was held that in case of transfer of an employee, not contemplated by fundamental rules, pay has to be fixed under the terms and conditions of transfer and not as per the fundamental rules. In that case, the respondent, an officiating Senior Accountant working in the office of Accountant General (A&E) was transferred to another State on his own request subject to the conditions, inter alia, that he would have to tender technical resignation from the existing post and on transfer he would be appointed on the lower post of accountant as a direct recruit with bottom seniority and he would forego the benefit, if any, of passing any departmental examination. The Supreme Court held that in such circumstances his pay on the new post had to be fixed with reference to the lower pay scale without any reference to pay drawn by him on the higher post as per the terms and conditions of the transfer, without any reference to the pay drawn by him in the higher post. The Supreme Court held that in such circumstances his pay on the new post had to be fixed with reference to the lower pay scale without any reference to pay drawn by him on the higher post as per the terms and conditions of the transfer, without any reference to the pay drawn by him in the higher post. Though this was the converse case on facts, the ratio that the pay shall be fixed as per the terms of the transfer, would apply to the instant case. 16. The only condition in the appointment order in the instant case being that the respondent would be allowed pay protection and in the absence of any condition that the amount equivalent to pension would be deducted from the salary, we do not think that the appllant-corporation was justified in fixing his pay after deducting the amount of pension. 17. The respondent in support of his case gave examples of (1) C.L. Gupta, (2) S.K. Pandey and (3) R.S. Mittal who, according to him, were allowed the benefit of pay fixation without deducting the amount of pension. The appellant in its reply in Para 12, admitted this fact but stated, apparently to steer clear, that action has been initiated to recover the excess amount from them. Nothing further was stated at the hearing of this appeal as to whether the final decision was taken in the matter and if so, the ultimate result thereof . 18. Be that is to may, while allowing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge upheld the respondents claim of fixation of pay at Rs. 2480 in terms of Rule 23 of the Recruitment Rules. Rule 23, in terms regulates fixation of pay on promotion or appointment to a higher post. We are not sure if in the instant case Rule 23 could be applied on. Prima-facie it appears that Rule 23 applies in case of promotion or appointment of in-service employees. The respondent was not in-service employee of the corporation. He was serving the corporation on deputation and the order dated 26.09.1988 was an order of fresh appointment by absorption. We are not sure if in the instant case Rule 23 could be applied on. Prima-facie it appears that Rule 23 applies in case of promotion or appointment of in-service employees. The respondent was not in-service employee of the corporation. He was serving the corporation on deputation and the order dated 26.09.1988 was an order of fresh appointment by absorption. In this view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the correctness of the finding of the learned Single Judge or respondents claim as to salary/pay to which he was entitled on his absorption pursuant to the order dated 26.09.1988, we would leave the matter open to the corporation to do the needful in the light of the findings and observations made hereinabove. 19. Subject to this observation, we find no error in the order of the learned Single Judge to warrant interference. The appeal being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.