JUDGMENT : B.N. Mahapatra, J. - The Petitioner-State of Orissa calls in the question the legality and validity of the order dated 28.6 2000 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in O.A. No. 2503 of 1994 by which the original application has been allowed and the Petitioner-State of Orissa has been directed to refix the pay of the opposite party No. 1 as an Asst. Surgeon on the date of his entry into the State service by taking into consideration the last pay drawn by him in the earlier post under ICMR and also to calculate the increment and the arrears payable to him, and to pay the same within a stipulated time. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present writ petition are that on 16.6.1977 opposite party No. 1, was initially appointed as Asst. Research Officer on temporary basis in the Regional Unit of National Nutrition Monitoring Bureau (for short, 'NNMB') by the Indian Council of Medical Research (for short, 'ICMR'). He got promotion to the post of Research Officer (Medical Officer) in the said institution in higher scale of pay of Rs. 700-1300/- with effect from 10.9.1981 by the ICMR. While continuing as such, the opposite party No. 1 was selected by the Orissa Public Service Commission (for short, 'OPSC') as Asst. Surgeon vide Notification No. 30118 dated 12.10.1984. Pursuant to such appointment, opposite party No. 1 submitted his resignation on 30.10.1984 from the post of Research Officer and, after acceptance of the resignation, he was.relieved from the service of ICMR vide Letter No. 1015 dated 10.12.1984 with effect from 14.12.1984. Thereafter, he joined the post of Asst. Surgeon in the State Medical & Health Services Cadre by the Govt, of Orissa, Health & Family Welfare Department on 15.12.1984 vide Annexure-2. After joining the State Government service, he submitted a representation dated 3.7.1985 to the State Government with a prayer to count his past services by allowing him the benefit of pay protection. The Government rejected the representation of opposite party No. 1 vide Health and Family Welfare Department Letter No. 35202/H dated 2.7.1984. Being aggrieved by the said order, opp. party No. 1 approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2503/94. The Government rejected the representation of opposite party No. 1 vide Health and Family Welfare Department Letter No. 35202/H dated 2.7.1984. Being aggrieved by the said order, opp. party No. 1 approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2503/94. Relying on the Finance Department Notification No. 315042/F dated 16.06.1980, the learned Tribunal allowed the Original Application of opposite party No. 1 by its order dated 28.06.2000 directing the State Government to re-fix the pay of opposite party No. 1 as an Asst. Surgeon on his entry into the Government service by taking into consideration the last pay drawn by the Applicant in the earlier post and to calculate his further increment accordingly from that date and to pay the arrears to him within five months from the date of receipt of its order Annexure-4. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner vehemently argued that the order of the Tribunal is illegal, arbitrary and is liable to be quashed. The Finance Department ratification No. 315042/F dated 16.06.1980 on the basis of which the Tribunal has granted relief to opposite party No. 1 is not applicable to the case of the Petitioner. The past service of opp. party No. 1 was under autonomous body functioning under the supervision of the Central Government. The past service of opp. party No. 1 cannot be considered as service under Central Government. In any event, to avail the benefit of Finance Department Notification dated 16.06.1980 the past and subsequent service of the Opp. Party No. 1 should be under the State Government. The Tribunal without allowing reasonable opportunity to the Respondent-Petitioner to file counter allowed the reliefs. The services of Dr. Ajaya Kumar Mishra-opposite party No. 1 under the State Nutrition Division were not pensionable. Learned Tribunal while allowing the O.A. by directing protection of opp. party No. 1 has relied on its earlier decision dated 2nd January, 1991 passed in O.A. No. 1188/89, which is not at all applicable to the present case, as in that case the Applicant Himanshu Sekhar Samantaray had claimed'for protection of pay, where both his services were under the State Government. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 1 submitted that NNMB is under the direct control and supervision of ICMR and is wholly financed by the I0MR. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 1 submitted that NNMB is under the direct control and supervision of ICMR and is wholly financed by the I0MR. The ICMR is under the active control of the Health & Family Welfare, Government of India and is wholly financed by the Government of India. Since opposite party No. 1 was working under ICMR he is an employee of the Government of India. The F.D. Notification No. 315042/F dated 16.6.1980 nowhere prescribes that the same is only applicable to employees/servants of the State Government and not Central government. The notification does not make any distinction between the employees of Central Government and State Government. Government means both Central and State Governments as defined in Section 3(23) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 2(18) of the Orissa General Clauses Act, 1937. To get the benefit under the F.D. Notification dated 16.6.1980, one is to be an employee of either State government of Central Government and the employee should have submitted his resignation from the previous post prior to his joining the new post under the State Government. The ICMR vide letter dated 3/4th September, 1992 clarified that the pensionary benefit is payable to an employee of NNMB. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. The question that falls for consideration by this Court is whether opposite party No. 1 while working as Research Officer in NNMB, was an employee under the Central Government and after joining the State Government service he is entitled to get protection of pay along with further increment from the date of his entry into the State Government Service on the basis of F.D. Notification No. 315042/F dated 16.6.1980. 6. Now it is necessary to know what is contemplated in Finance Department Notification No. 315042/F dated 16.6.1980, which is reproduced under: Protection of pay of Government servants who resign their previous posts to join new posts under the Government. The question whether the benefit of past service for the purpose of fixation of pay can be given to Government Servants who resign their posts before taking up appointments in new posts in the same or Anr. Department/Organisation has been under the consideration of the State Government. Normally the benefit of past service is not allowed in the cases where service has been terminated by resignation, removal or dismissal. Department/Organisation has been under the consideration of the State Government. Normally the benefit of past service is not allowed in the cases where service has been terminated by resignation, removal or dismissal. It has, however, been noticed that in several cases employees are called upon to resign their posts before taking up appointment in new posts offered to them as a result of examinations conducted by Service Commissions, Boards, etc. Representations and claims are made by such employees for protection of their past service and pay in the new posts. In consideration of the existing employment situation, Government are of the view that denial of protection in such cases would bring avoidable financial hardship to the employees. It has, therefore, been decided that in the cases where Government servants take examinations conducted by Service Commissions, Boards, etc., for appointment to new posts or where they apply for posts in the same or other Departments through proper channel, and on selection are asked to resign their posts for administrative reasons, the benefit of service may, if not otherwise inadmissible under the Rules, be given to them for fixation of pay in the new post treating the resignation as a technical formality. This concession is subject to the condition that Government servants join their new posts within a period not exceeding the normal joining time admissible on transfer. This order will have effect from the date of issue and past cases will not be reopened. Pending cases will, however, be dealt in accordance with this order. This Notification shows that in cases where government servants take examination conducted by the Service Commissions Boards etc. for appointment to the new post or where they apply for the post in the same or in other Department through proper channel and on selection are asked to resign their past for administrative reasons, the benefit of service may, if not otherwise inadmissible under the rules, be given to them for fixation of pay in the new post treating the resignation as a technical formality. The above Notification is applicable only to the government servants who are working in the Government prior to and after their selection to the new post in the Government. Admittedly, nowhere in the Notification it is mentioned that government servant means only the State Government servants. The question now arises as to whether the past services of opp. The above Notification is applicable only to the government servants who are working in the Government prior to and after their selection to the new post in the Government. Admittedly, nowhere in the Notification it is mentioned that government servant means only the State Government servants. The question now arises as to whether the past services of opp. party No. 1, before joining State Government service, was under the Central Government. In other words, whether opp. party No. 1 during his service in NNMB can be considered to be an employee under the Central Government. The contention of Opp. Party No. 1 is that NNMB is not only under the direct control and supervision of the ICMR but also is wholly financed by the ICMR, which is also under the active control of the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of India and is wholly financed by the Government of India. Thus, opp. party No. 1 is a Central Government employee. Accordingly to the Petitioner, past service of opp. party No. 1 was under the autonomous body functioning under the supervision of the Central Government and therefore, the same cannot be considered as service under the Central Government. 7. At this juncture, it would be useful to refer to some of the decisions of the apex Court and Rules governing the field. In Dr. S.L. Agarwal Vs. The General Manager, Hindustan Steel Ltd. the apex Court held that Hindustan Steel Ltd. was not a department of the Government nor the employees thereof were holding any civil post under the State. It has its independent existence and by law relating to Corporations. In these circumstances, the Appellant who was an employee of Hindustan Steel Limited does not answer the description of holder of civil post under the Union as stated in the article the Appellant-employee was therefore not entitled to the protection under Article 311. In Thote Bhaskara Rao Vs. A.P. Public Service Commission and Others the apex Court held that service in a government undertaking such as Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. is not equivalent to government service for the purposes of appointment in a government service. The expression 'State' does not include such an undertaking except for limited purpose of Part III. In Union Public Service Commission Vs. Dr. A.P. Public Service Commission and Others the apex Court held that service in a government undertaking such as Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. is not equivalent to government service for the purposes of appointment in a government service. The expression 'State' does not include such an undertaking except for limited purpose of Part III. In Union Public Service Commission Vs. Dr. Jamuna Kurup and Others the apex Court held that a municipal corporation is not "Government", and municipal employees are not government servants governed by Articles 309 to 311. Though permanent employees of Municipal Corporation or other statutory bodies may be governed by statutory rules, yet they do not enjoy the status of government servants. In Mahavir Singh Vs. Khiali Ram and Others the apex Court held that although the post of Lambardar is governed by the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Code and the Rules framed thereunder, holder of the said post is not a government servant. He does not hold a civil post within the meaning of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. According to Rule 2(b) of Orissa Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1959, the expression "Government Servant" means any person appointed to serve in connection with the affairs of the State, in respect of whom the Government of Orissa is empowered to make rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, whether for the time being such person serving in connection with affairs of the Government of India or of any State, or is on foreign service or on leave. According to Section 2(b) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964, the expression "Government Servant" means any person appointed by government to any civil service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union and includes a civilian, in a defence service. According to Rule 2(h) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 "Government Servant" means a person who is a member of a service or holds a civil post under the Union, and includes any such person on foreign service or whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of a State Government, or a local or other authority. 8. When the present case is examined in the light of the above decisions and the rules governing the field, we are not at all convinced by the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for opp. party No. 1 that opp. 8. When the present case is examined in the light of the above decisions and the rules governing the field, we are not at all convinced by the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for opp. party No. 1 that opp. party No. 1 prior to his joining the State Government Service on 15.12.1984 was an employee under the Central Government and the Notification dated 16.06.1980 issued by the Government of Orissa is applicable to his case. 9. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.6.2000 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. No costs. L. Mohapatra, J. 10. I agree. Final Result : Allowed