Judgment R. M. SAVANT, J.: - The petitioner has filed the above petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the following reliefs : (i) direct the respondents to count the petitioner's rationalized promotion on 1.1.1988 and direct the respondents to release all the subsequent benefits to the petitioner from 1.1.1988. (ii) direct the respondents to count the twenty years of service of the petitioner and release benefits of the O.M. No. 103/93/82/EP dated 12.1.1989, 19.4.1989, 27.10.89 and 7.6.1991, which is applicable only to those employees who have completed twenty years of service and attend the age of 50 years or more, (iii) direct the respondents to release the pension of the petitioner by counting his twenty years of service as per the Notification of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 vide dated 16.11.1995. (iv) direct the respondents to release all the other consequential benefits for which the petitioner is entitled; and (v) Grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper into the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The factual matrix involved in the petition, can be stated thus :- The petitioner who was working in the Geological Survey of India was permanently absorbed in the Mineral Exploration Corporation of (India) Limited, by virtue of the order dated 17.12.1975 issued by the Director General, Geological Survey of India. The absorption of the petitioner in the said Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited was on the terms and conditions as contained in the letter dated 30-12-1975 issued by the said Corporation. The petitioner thereafter applied to the Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd., for the post of Assistant Marketing Officer (Accounts) vide his application dated 09-06-1978. The petitioner was interviewed for the said post by the Selection Committee on 09-11-1978 and vide letter dated 06-12-1978, the said Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd., offered the post of Assistant Marketing Officer (Accounts) to the petitioner. 3. The petitioner accepted the said appointment, the terms and conditions of which were mentioned in the annexure to the said letter dated 06-12-1978. Contemporaneously, it appears that the petitioner tendered his resignation from the said Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited, which was accepted by the said Corporation vide order dated January, 1979. The petitioner was in terms of the said appointment order was appointed on probation for a period of 12 months from 16-01-1979. Contemporaneously, it appears that the petitioner tendered his resignation from the said Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited, which was accepted by the said Corporation vide order dated January, 1979. The petitioner was in terms of the said appointment order was appointed on probation for a period of 12 months from 16-01-1979. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Manager (Finance) in the Maharashtra Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The petitioner was interviewed for the said post by the selection committee on 22-09-1980 and by a letter dated 31-05-1981, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Manager (Finance) in the said company on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said letter dated 31-05-1981. Thereafter, the petitioner tendered his resignation from the said Maharashtra Antibiotics and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., on 3001-1984, for which a certificate was issued by the said Government Company, wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner has left its services on his own. 4. The petitioner thereafter, applied to the respondent No.1 for the post of Finance & Accounts Officer, for which he was interviewed on 20-07-1983 and the petitioner was given appointment vide Memorandum dated 15-09-1983. The terms and conditions of the appointment of the petitioner were mentioned in Annexure I to the said memorandum dated 15-09-1983. The petitioner accordingly joined the services of respondent No.1 on or about 01-02-1984. It appears from the record that the petitioner was promoted on 01-01-1989 to the next higher post as per his eligibility. The said promotion was granted to the petitioner on the premise that the petitioner completed four years of qualifying service on 01-01-1989, as the date to be reckoned for computing the said period of 4 years was 01-01-1985. 5. The petitioner vide prayer clauses (i) and (ii) of the petition, seeks promotion from an anterior date i.e. from 01-01-1988 on the basis that the petitioner was required to report for duties on or before 15-10-1983. However, infact, the petitioner has joined the duties with the respondent No.1 only on 01-02-1984. This was in view of the fact that the petitioner's erstwhile employer Maharashtra Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., had sought an extension of 15 days in view of the work which the petitioner had to complete before being relieved by the said company. 6. However, infact, the petitioner has joined the duties with the respondent No.1 only on 01-02-1984. This was in view of the fact that the petitioner's erstwhile employer Maharashtra Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., had sought an extension of 15 days in view of the work which the petitioner had to complete before being relieved by the said company. 6. The petitioner is claiming rationalization also on the ground that the petitioner was entitled to join duties within a period of 45 days. In so far as the said relief is concerned, it would be pertinent to note that the petitioner accepted promotion granted to him on 01-01-1989 without demur and has filed the instant petition in the year 2002 i.e. after a period of 12 years of his promotion. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner was relieved on 15-01-1984 for which a certificate has been issued by the said company. Thereafter, the petitioner has continued for 15 days with the said company to finish uncompleted work. The petitioner having joined the respondent No.1 only on 01-02-1984, the respondents were therefore, entitled to compute four years period from 01-01-1985 as per rules. Therefore, on both the counts i.e. on the ground of delay in approaching this Court, as also on the ground that the promotion granted to the petitioner by reckoning qualifying period of four years from 01-01-1985, which was in terms of the rules applicable, we do not find any illegality in the said action of the respondent No.1 and resultantly, the relief sought by the petitioner in terms of prayer clauses (i) and (ii) of the petition cannot be granted. 7. So far as prayer clause (iii) is concerned, the respondent No.1 is a Government Company, which was established under Statute. The respondent No.1 has its own service regulations for its employees. The petitioner seeks to rely upon Pension Scheme known as 'Employees Pension Scheme, 1995'. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 states that the said scheme is not applicable to the respondent No.1 and in fact, respondent No.1 does not have any pension scheme, but has a contributory scheme known as Post Retirement and death in Service Benefit Scheme (PRBS). It is submitted on behalf of respondent No.1 that the petitioner on his retirement, has been given all the retiral benefits under the said scheme, which the petitioner has availed of. 8. It is submitted on behalf of respondent No.1 that the petitioner on his retirement, has been given all the retiral benefits under the said scheme, which the petitioner has availed of. 8. In the light of the said factual position, the prayer clause (iii), in fact cannot be countenanced. It would be also pertinent to note that benefit of the past service of the petitioner cannot be granted to him in as much as the petitioner has joined the various Corporations/Government Companies on his own accord to further his prospects and it is not that the petitioner was sent on deputation or that his services was sought to be availed of by any other Corporation for its benefit. In such circumstances, benefit of the previous service cannot be granted to the petitioner and the same therefore, cannot be taken into consideration for computation of any relief/benefit qua the respondent No.1. The appointment with the respondent No.1 was subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment letter issued to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not brought to our notice any policy of the Central Government applicable to the respondent No.1, by virtue of which the past services rendered by the petitioner can be taken into consideration. Resultantly, we do not find any merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.