ORDER 1. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for benefit of pay revision as per the Board’s Circular dated 9.1.1998 w.e.f. 1.4.1999. It is further prayed that the order of the Registrar dated 3.7.2002 and 5.7.2002 be set aside. Subsequently, by amending the petition the orders dated 6.7.2007 (Annexure P-34) and 10.4.2007 (Annexure P-36) were also called in question. 2. Shri D.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners were employees of Rural Electric Cooperative Society, Gohad. They were subsequently absorbed and became part of the respodent-department. Being employees of the respondent-department, they are entitled for same treatment in the matter of grant of revision of pay scales. 3. Prayer is opposed by Shri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the respondents. Shri Jain by placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment reported in 2012 (5) MPHT 183 (DB) (M.P.S.E.B. v. Brajendra Singh Kushwah and others) submits that the said judgment squarely covers the present case. 4. Shri D.P.Singh fairly submits that although said judgment covers the case in hand, but the judgment in Brajendra Singh Kushwah (supra) was again considered by Division Bench (Indore) in Writ Appeal No. 685/2011 (M.P.State Electricity Board v. Electricity Supply Employees Union), decided on 22.4.2013. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. This is not in dispute between the parties that in absorption order dated 3.6.2004 following conditions were made :- “The absorption of the above employees, is on the following terms and conditions:- (1) The above regular employees are absorbed on the same terms and conditions as existing in the Society, except that no deputation allowance shall be paid to them. (2) Their pay scale will be the same which they are getting before the absorption. (3) Their age of superannuation will be the same as applicable in the Society. (4) Their pension/gratuity will be payable in the Board as per rules/regulations of the society. (5) Their designation will be maintained under the Board as it was in the Society.” 7. The effect and impact of similar conditions were considered by the Division Bench in Brajendra Singh Kushwah (supra). In Brajendra Singh Kushwah, the Division Bench considered the earlier order passed by Principal Seat in Writ Petition No. 463/1999. Paras 18 and 19 of the said judgment reads as under:- “18. Submissions of Mr. The effect and impact of similar conditions were considered by the Division Bench in Brajendra Singh Kushwah (supra). In Brajendra Singh Kushwah, the Division Bench considered the earlier order passed by Principal Seat in Writ Petition No. 463/1999. Paras 18 and 19 of the said judgment reads as under:- “18. Submissions of Mr. Ruprah, learned counsel is that as the applicant’s case was considered by the society for promotion and at the time of absorption it was mentioned that they would be absorbed on the same terms and conditions as existing in the society and he was Junior Engineer and, therefore, he was entitled to be promoted as Assistant Engineer as such Junior Engineers who have been similarly placed under the services of the Board have been promoted. As is perceivable the Board had issued further guidelines/terms and conditions as per order/circular dated 5.6.2004. On reading of the further terms and conditions it cannot be said that the employee who has been absorbed in the Board will get the benefit of the Board as if he was an employee of the Board from very inception. The Board at the time of absorption has fixed the terms and conditions and on a perusal of such terms and conditions it is quite clear that the Junior Engineer shall be given the designation but would not be considered for promotion by applying the Board’s regulations as if he was in the Board’s services. The said terms and conditions fixed by the Board are in consonance with the decision rendered in Ram Parvesh Singh (supra) wherein it has been held that the Board has no obligation towards the employees of the previous owner’s undertaking. Be it noted to arrive at such a conclusion their Lordships have placed reliance on the decision rendered in Bhola Nath Mukherjee v.. Government of W.B. : (1997) 1 SCC 562 .” 19. In view of our preceding analysis we do not find any merit in the present writ appeal and accordingly the same stands dismissed. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.” 8. No doubt, the Indore Bench considered the judgment of Brajendra Singh Kushwah (supra). A perusal of page 5 of the judgment shows that in the Rural Electrification Cooperative Society, Manawar the employees were getting pay scale at par with the respondent-Board. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.” 8. No doubt, the Indore Bench considered the judgment of Brajendra Singh Kushwah (supra). A perusal of page 5 of the judgment shows that in the Rural Electrification Cooperative Society, Manawar the employees were getting pay scale at par with the respondent-Board. In other words, the pay scales granted to the employees of Cooperative Society were similar to that of the employees of the Board before absorption. The absorption order gave protection to employees that existing terms and conditions will follow. Since in Manawar Society the pay scales were same, the conditions of absorption were directed to be implemented. However, in Brajendra Singh Kushwah (supra) the conditions were different. Therefore, Indore Bench in para 8 of the judgment opined that the present case stands on different factual footing because the members of respondent No.1-Union were getting the same pay scale as employees of the Board prior to their absorption. 9. In the present case, admittedly, the pay scales of the petitioners were inferior in the erstwhile society and, therefore, Indore Bench judgment is of no assistance to them. The judgment in Brajendra Singh Kushwah (supra) will hold the field. It is apt to quote paras 24 and 26 of the judgments in Brajendra Singh Kushwah (supra), which reads as under:- “24. In the present case, the distinguishing feature is the pay disparity which existed not only since prior to the date of absorption but also continued subsequent thereto on account of the terms and conditions contained in the order of the Commission granting sanction for revocation of 10 REC Societies and the consequential orders of absorption. It is neither pleaded nor it is the case of the petitioners that there was parity of pay scale before or after absorption between the absorbed employees vis-a-vis the original employees of the Board. Resultantly the petitioners not having challenged the terms and conditions contained in the order of sanction for revocation of licence dated 20.02.2002 and also contained in the order of absorption issued by the Board, are now estopped from challenging the necessary fallout/ consequence of pay disparity stemming out of the said unchallenged terms and conditions. 26. Resultantly the petitioners not having challenged the terms and conditions contained in the order of sanction for revocation of licence dated 20.02.2002 and also contained in the order of absorption issued by the Board, are now estopped from challenging the necessary fallout/ consequence of pay disparity stemming out of the said unchallenged terms and conditions. 26. In view of the above, it appears that the decision of the Single Bench rendered on 13.09.2011 in WP No.12029/2010 was based upon different set of facts and circumstances where the parity between the absorbed REC Societies employees and the original employees of the Board was not disputed. Thus, the said decision in WP No.12029/2010 and the reliance placed thereupon is of no avail to the petitioners/respondents herein, in the present case where no such parity exited either before or after absorption. Thus, this Court is impelled to hold that the reliance placed by the writ Court on the order dated 13.09.2011 passed in WP No.12029/2010 while passing the impugned order is misplaced.” 10. In the light of the judgment of Brajendra Singh Kushwah (supra), no relief is due to the petitioner. Petition is dismissed. No costs.