JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. The writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the opposite parties to sanction and pay pension to the petitioner w.e.f. the date of his retirement i.e., 01.04.1992 and to quash the order of opposite party no.2 dated 01.11.2004 along with all consequential benefits. Case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as a Time Keeper in the erstwhile National Coal Development Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. (in short NCDC) on 17.02.1959 with the clear cut stipulation by the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules 1949 with all amendments will be applicable to the petitioner. Thereafter, service of the petitioner was confirmed to the post of Lower Division Clerk/Typist and has been given regular pay scale. While he was working, a office memorandum dated 15.07.1987 was issued by the Coal India Ltd. regarding revision of provisions regulating pension in pursuance of the Government decisions on recommendation of the 4th Central Pay Commission providing therein it shall be equally applicable in respect of Ex-NCDC/Coal Board Employees (both Executives and non-executives) of Coal India and it is subsidiary companies. The Coal India Ltd. has issued office memorandum on 9.07.1990 providing the method of calculation of pension in respect of Non-Executives of Ex-NCDC employees who had opted for wage Board pay scales. The petitioner while in service has exercised his option for the pay scales of Coal Mines attendance Bonus and Dearness allowances recommended by wage Board and accepted by the Government of India as per office memorandum dated 14.08.1968, the petitioner retired from the service of the company w.e.f. 31.03.1992. The grievance of the petitioner is that the employees who have opted for Wage Board scales of pay and have retired are entitled for pension but for the reason best known to the authorities, his pension was not paid even though he was retired after 1.1.1987 and opted for Wage Board pay scale. The petitioner has raised his grievance by way of representation but that has not taken into consideration as such the petitioner has approached this Court vide W.P.(C) No.4286 of 2004 which was disposed of directing the authorities to dispose of the representation. The petitioner has raised his grievance by way of representation but that has not taken into consideration as such the petitioner has approached this Court vide W.P.(C) No.4286 of 2004 which was disposed of directing the authorities to dispose of the representation. While disposing the representation, claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to be given the benefit of pension since he has retired under Wage Board opting for Wage Board pay scales hence not covered by the pension as applicable to the Ex-NCDC/Ex-Coal Board C.P.C. pensioners. The petitioner has taken ground that on the similar footing one P.C. Das, ex-pharmacist who has opted for Wage Board pay scales has been extended the benefit of pension but the petitioner has been discriminated hence this writ petition. Opposite party no.2 has appeared and filed counter affidavit inter alia stated therein that on 1.10.1956, NCDC was founded having three sets of employees i.e., (a) those covered under CPC scale and governed by Civil Service Rules of Govt. of India, (b) those governed by Indian Railways Rules and (c) those governed by Corporation Rules of NCDC. Government of India has found that the taken over employees of NCDC cannot be shown as Govt. employees as there is no post existing as such options were sought for from such employees vide Memo No. C-6-14(43)/63 to remain in service on the same terms and conditions of service which they were availing while in the service of NCDC in place of removing them from service. Similarly, for other set of employees borrowed from Railways were asked to exercise their option whether to retain their right for Railway Pension scheme and family pension scheme as sanctioned by the Ministry of Railways and likewise the Government employees who have coming in the service having the service conditions applicable to the regular Central Government employee. The petitioner has given undertaking on 29.10.1968 by giving declaration for opting the pay scale recommended by the wage board by the Govt. of India and for retaining the existing conditions of service as on 14.08.1967. The petitioner has given undertaking on 29.10.1968 by giving declaration for opting the pay scale recommended by the wage board by the Govt. of India and for retaining the existing conditions of service as on 14.08.1967. It is the further case of the opposite party no.2 that the claim of the petitioner to get pensionary benefit is not sustainable for the reason that he was retired from service as Ex-NCDC employee who opted for wage board pay scale but the petitioner has not retired from the pensionable service. So far as the contention regarding claim of parity as P.C. Das, it has been stated that the petitioner cannot be compared with Mr. P.C. Das, ex-Pharmacist as because he was taken over employee by the erstwhile NCDC where the petitioner was appointed by the NCDC after its formation. On these grounds, claim of the petitioner has been disputed by opposite party no.2. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of documents, it is the case of the petitioner that he is claiming benefit of pension at par with other employees who have subsequently been extended the benefit of pension, those employees are either the Government servants or the Railway Servants. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, relevant facts which needs to be referred which is the NCDC was founded on 1.10.1956. The collieries owned by the Railways and other Coal Companies have been brought under the purview of direct control of the Central Government. When all private Coal Companies including the Coal Companies being governed by the Railways have been brought under the control of the Government of India, the post which was held by the petitioner under NCDC being found non-existence, hence Government has formulated a policy decision as contained in Memo No. C-6-14(43)/63 giving therein options to such type of employees to remain in the same terms and conditions of service which they were in the service of NCDC and for that the Wage Board pay scales was constituted and the petitioner has given option to remain in the said Wage Board as per the undertaking given by him on 29.10.1968 and retired from service on the same terms and conditions which were in the said Wage Board pay scales. Those governed under CPF Scale and governed by CCS Rules of Government of India, those who are governed by the rules of the Railways and those who are governed by the rules framed by the NCDC with the clear cut stipulation that the service conditions of the petitioner shall be regulated by the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949 with all amendments. From the facts, it is also evident that the employees working in the NCDC cannot be shown as Government employees and as such the decision was taken by the Govt. of India after taking over the Private Coal Companies vide its Memo No.C-6-14(43)/63. The similar exercise was also initiated for the employees categorised in the three sets of employees i.e., one is the employees having been appointed by NCDC, others who have been brought in the service from the Railway service and other group is from the Government service. The petitioner admittedly was directly appointed by the NCDC having his own service conditions although there is stipulation that the service of the petitioner will be regulated by the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules 1949 but so far as monetary benefit is concerned, the petitioner has been offered to exercise option and accordingly the petitioner has offered his option for the monetary benefit under the wage board and given undertaking on 29.10.1968 accepting the pay scale and other allowances as recommended by Wage Board, Govt. of India. Thus, there is no dispute that the petitioner has retired from service on the basis of the option having been exercised by him to remain in the scale of pay and other allowances based upon the decision of the wage board by Govt. of India and as such he is entitled to get benefit as provided under the statute of the Wage Board. The petitioner now claims that since the NCDC has been taken over under the Central Government hence he is entitled to be given benefit of pension. This claim is being made by the petitioner for the reason that the moment NCDC has been taken over by the Central Government, all the services conditions applicable to a Central Government employee will be applicable and also on the ground that one of the person namely Shri P.C. Das, Ex-pharmacist who has also opted for wage board has been extended the benefit of pension scheme. So far as the ground raised by the petitioner, he cannot be said to be entitled for the same because of the reason that when the NCDC has been merged and taken over under the Government at that time NCDC has already having three sets of employees with different terms and conditions of service as such decision was taken during the relevant time to ask an option from such employee whether to accept the wage board scales of pay or to go from service since the post was not in existence, accordingly, the petitioner was directly appointed under NCDC as temporary employee neither a Government employee nor a Railway employee. The petitioner was not covered under the pensionary service rather exercised option as required vide memo no. C-6-14(43)/63 issued by the Ministry of Steel and Mines, the petitioner since was neither a Government servant nor was in pensionary service rather he was opted to go for wage board pay scale hence he is not entitled to get parity with the employees who have been extended the benefit of pension. The petitioner is claiming parity with the Government service who were in the NCDC or from the Railways service who were in the NCDC at that time. But being in Government servant and in the Railway service they have to remain in their own service conditions and accordingly, they become entitled to get benefit of pension. But so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, since he was directly been appointed by the NCDC, hence his service conditions cannot be governed at par with the other employees who had come in the Central Government or Railway Service as such Government has taken decision to ask option from the employees who have directly been appointed in the NCDC and accordingly the petitioner has exercised his option to remain in the settlement as per the Wage Board decision decided by the Central Government, hence the petitioner cannot claim parity with the employees who have come in the service of NCDC either from the Central Government or from the Railway service as because parity is always on the basis of similar facts and circumstances. So far as the contention that one Shri P.C. Das, ex-pharmacist has been extended benefit of pension although he has opted for wage board scales of pay which has been replied in the counter affidavit by justifying their action that the case of the petitioner and P.C. Das is totally different as because Shri P.C. Das was taken over by the employee by the erstwhile NCDC whereas the petitioner was appointed by the NCDC hence there cannot be any parity and for that reason Shri P.C. Das has been given benefit vide Annexure-9 to avail the benefit of pension. So far as the contention of the petitioner is that CCS (Temporary) Rules 1949 will be applicable with its amendments and now it has been amended as CCS (Temporary) Rules 1965 hence since the said service conditions is applicable as such he is also entitled to get at par with other Central Government employees. This contention cannot be accepted for the reason that the service conditions deals with the conditions of service which shall be regulated by the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules 1949 with all amendments which has now been amended and to be known as CCS (Temporary Services) Rules 1965 and on its perusal there is no provision regarding benefit of pension and that cannot be there for the reason that the pension is supposed to be governed by a separate rules and the petitioner has failed to draw attention of this Court regarding any pension rules governing his case and it is settled that pension or any benefit can only be given if provided under the statute. In view of the facts and circumstances as narrated above, there is no merit in the writ petition, hence dismissed being devoid of merits.