ORDER The present writ petition is by a person who is employed 'in the services of M/s. Kamataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, but who is aspiring for special benefit which is available to a Senior Government Servant whose pay and allowances are required to be refixed on par with his junior in the event of the junior getting higher pay than the senior subject to several conditions mentioned in Rule 7-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Automatic Grant of Special Promotion to Senior Scale of Pay) Rules, 1991 (for short, 'the Rules'). 2. It is for granting the benefit in terms of this rule in favour of the petitioner by quashing the endorsement dated 28-3-2003 (copy at Annexure-D) issued by the respondent-Corporation and for consequential direction to extend the benefit etc., the present writ petition. 3. I have heard Smt. Nirmala, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents. 4. An employee in the services of the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited is definitely not the same as a Government Servant serving in the services of the State Government. 5. There is no question of any service condition applicable to a Government Servant automatically being extended to an employee serving in the Corporation until and unless the service conditions so indicate i.e., the appointment order so indicate or service conditions governing the employees of the respondent-Corporation so provides for. 6. Though it is very vehemently urged by Smt. Nirmala, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner does fulfill the conditions mentioned in Rule 7-A of the Rules, it is not even necessary to examine this submission as the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not able to point out as to how this rule applies to the employees of the respondent-Corporation. 7. However, the alternative submission is not extending such benefit to the employees of the respondent-Corporation while such benefit is given to Government Servants amounts to discriminatory act. 8. This argument is without any substance for the reason that the employees of the respondent-Corporation are different from Government Servants. They are not comparable though the Corporation may for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India answer the test of 'State' but it does not become 'State' by itself. 9. 8. This argument is without any substance for the reason that the employees of the respondent-Corporation are different from Government Servants. They are not comparable though the Corporation may for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India answer the test of 'State' but it does not become 'State' by itself. 9. There is no comparison between service conditions of the employees of the respondent-Corporation and the Government Servants who are governed by separate service regulations. No act of discrimination can be averred or inferred in such a situation. There is no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 10. While Smt. Nirmala, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Karnataka Electricity Board v Y.N. Venkatakrishna, to contend that the petitioner should be extended the benefit of Rule 7-A of the Rules as otherwise it would amount to discriminatory act, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently urge that while the petitioner does not even fulfill the conditions on facts as the petitioner had not got promotion to the present post as was his junior; that the situation is directly covered by a subsequent decision of the Division Bench in the case of B.C. Jayaram and Others v The Karnataka Electricity Board that the petitioner is virtually seeking for a double benefit as in the case of petitioner and appellant in Writ Appeal Nos. 8394 to 8399 of 1996. 11. While I do not find anything in favour of the petitioner in either of these two judgments and therefore it cannot be said that the situation is fully covered by either of these two judgments, even on an independent examination of the situation as it is not made out that the provisions of Rule 7-A of the Rules are also applicable to the service conditions of the employees of the respondent-Corporation, the question of either quashing the endorsement at Annexure-D on such premise or issuing consequential mandamus for extending the benefit does not arise. 12. Writ petition is dismissed.