JUDGMENT : 1. The State has filed the present appeal to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 07.08.2018 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7352/2016. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the original petitioner respondent herein was appointed as Junior Geologist in the Mines and Geology Department, Government of Rajasthan on 27.11.1963. He was sent on deputation to Rajasthan State Industrial and Mineral Development Corporation, where he discharged his duties from 27.10.1969 to 29.10.1972. He was again sent on deputation under order dated 11.07.1973 to Bikaner Gypsum Ltd., which was later-on re-named as Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. While working in the said organization, the petitioner was offered appointment on the post of Deputy Controller of Stores and Purchase under letter dated 10.12.1974. To accept such appointment, the petitioner sought permission of the Department and offered his resignation in public interest under letter dated 14.12.1974. The department granted permission to the petitioner to join the said organization and accepted his resignation vide communication dated 04.01.1975. The petitioner thereupon was absorbed in RSMML where he worked from 05.01.1975 till 31.12.1995 when he retired on superannuation from the post of Group General Manager. The petitioner thus had rendered total service in the Government and Government Corporation put together of about 31 years. Out of this, the petitioner had put in 11 years, 1 month and 9 days services in the Mines and Geology Department of the State Government which included the period spent on deputation. The petitioner sought the benefit of the said services of over 11 years with the Government, which was rejected by the Government under the letter dated 20.11.2009. The petitioner thereupon approached the High Court. Though the prayers made in the writ petition are somewhat confusing, both sides agree that the petitioner wants the benefit of past period of service of 11 years, one month and 9 days rendered with the Government and receive proportionate retiral benefits. According to the counsel for the petitioner this would include pro-rata pension and gratuity for the period in question. According to the counsel for the petitioner this would include pro-rata pension and gratuity for the period in question. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by the impugned judgment and directed the State authorities to grant proportionate basic pension to the petitioner from 05.01.1975 to 31.12.1975 (which appears to be based on the prayer made by the petitioner but his prayer appears to be to grant continuous pension on the basis of the petitioner's past service with the Government). 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 4. In principal, what emerges is that the petitioner while in Government service was sent on deputation to Government owned corporations. After 11 years, 1 month and 9 days service, the petitioner was offered absorption on higher post which offer the petitioner accepted. For such purpose, the petitioner obviously had to give resignation from the Government service. Such resignation however would not result in forfeiture of the past service as is the normal rule. This is so because the petitioner had resigned with the permission of the Government and such resignation was for the purpose of absorption in the State owned corporation. In services law, such resignations are referred to as technical resignations. The State Government does not discourage inter departmental or Government to public sector migrations and for such purpose if the Government employee joins the post in public sector with the permission of the Government, such resignation is treated as technical resignation. This is what precisely emerges from decisions No. 5(1) and 5(2) of Rule 158 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, which have been correctly interpreted by the learned Single Judge. This decisions read as under: "5. Attention is invited to Finance Department order dated 23-7-1968 (Decision No. 4) above lay down the terms for transfer of the services of Government servants to Autonomous bodies/Public sector corporation. A question has been raised as to what treatment would be accorded to Government servants who, on their own accord applied for direct recruitment and have already been appointed, went initially on deputation by their own choice and were subsequently given regular appointment or may be appointed in future by direct recruitment or transfer of services in Public Sector Undertakings/Autonomous bodies The matter has been considered and it is clarified that the provision of the aforesaid order do not apply to such Government servants." 2. However, with a view to cover all such cases of transfer or appointments direct recruitment in the past and also cases which may arise hereafter, the Governor has been pleased to order that in the case of permanent or temporary Government servants whose appointments under Government were made in accordance with provisions of relevant Service Rules regarding recruitment, promotion etc. promulgated under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, or on the recommendations of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission or Departmental Selection Committee and who have completed not less than 5 years continuous services under Government at the time of transfer of their services to autonomous bodies/Public sector corporations, the transfer of their services may be treated in public interest and retirement benefits, subject to provisions contained in paragraph 3 and 4 below may be allowed to such Government servants." 5. Even Rule 208 of the said Rules, which pertains to forfeiture of the past service upon resignation, dismissal or removal by the Government employee, makes a clear distinction in case of technical resignation. Under the said Rule, clause (a) provides that the resignation of public service or dismissal for misconduct, insolvency, inefficiency not due to age or failure to pass a prescribed examination entails forfeiture of past service. However, clause (b) of the said Rule provides that resignation of an appointment to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether permanent or temporary, service in which counts in full or in part, is not a resignation of public service. The issue was also examined by Division Bench of Delhi High Court in case of Union of India V/s. Pramod Kumar Pandey (W.P. (C) No. 742/2009), which was relied upon by the learned Single Judge. 6. To conclude, upon resignation from the Government Service to join the public sector government owned corporation which was done with the permission of the Government would not entail forfeiture of past service with the Government. The petitioner was, therefore, entitled to all the benefits of past service as may be available under the rules. This would not automatically mean that the petitioner must get pro-rata pension. The same must depend on the prevailing service rules which would provide minimum qualifying service for pension. He would thus be entitled for the pro-rata pension if the past service satisfies the minimum qualifying pensionary service as per rules prevailing at the relevant time. This would not automatically mean that the petitioner must get pro-rata pension. The same must depend on the prevailing service rules which would provide minimum qualifying service for pension. He would thus be entitled for the pro-rata pension if the past service satisfies the minimum qualifying pensionary service as per rules prevailing at the relevant time. The petitioner would be entitled to get gratuity for the services rendered by him with the Government which would also be subject to verification whether upon his absorption in the Corporation past service with the government was counted for the purpose of gratuity to be paid by the corporation. 7. Under the circumstances, the appeal is disposed with the modification of the order passed by the learned Single Judge as under: (1) The petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of past service for the purpose of pro-rata pension if such past service satisfies the minimum qualifying pensionary service as per rules at the relevant time. (2) The petitioner would also receive other benefits including leave encashment and gratuity if his past service was not counted for the purpose of such benefits by the Corporation. (3) The authority shall examine these aspects and pay the benefits as found payable within three months from today. Such payment shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum from 1.1.2012 considering the fact that he had first approached the High Court in the year 2012 by filing writ petition No. 3772/2012. 8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.