JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Madhusudan Srivastava and Mr. Anupras Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties. 2. This petition was initially filed by eight petitioners, however, subsequently petitioners no. 5, 6, 7 and 8 have withdrawn their writ petitions as permitted vide order dated 24.11.2015 passed by this Court, therefore, the petition survives only in respect of petitioners no. 1, 2, 3 and 4. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that an advertisement bearing No. 3/Vidyut Sewa Ayog/98 was issued by the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Service Commission inviting applications for selection and appointment as Assistant Engineer Trainee (E&M) and Junior Engineer Trainee (E&M) in the erstwhile U.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred as 'Board'). The petitioners applied in pursuance to the said advertisement and appeared in the selection. The result of the selection was declared on 19.12.2000 and 30.12.2000, but, prior to it, on 23.06.1999, an Act known as U.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1999') was published in the U.P. Gazette after receiving the assent of the President on 23.06.1999. As per Section 1(3) of the Act 1999, it was to come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification, appoint in this behalf. The appointed date, as per the subsequent notification, is 14.01.2000. By means of the Act 1999, U.P. Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'UPPCL') was formed which was to be legal successor of the Board in relation to all power purchase and transmission agreements entered into by the Board with generating and transmitting companies including those owned and controlled by the Central Government. 4. The advertisement No. 3/Vidyut Sewa Ayog/98 was issued when the Board was in existence and the UPPCL was not in existence but when result of the selection was declared, the Board had ceased to exist and its successor UPPCL had come into existence. 5. The petitioners no. 1 and 2 were appointed as Junior Engineer Trainee (E&M) whereas petitioners no. 3 and 4 were appointed as Assistant Engineer Trainee (E&M) vide orders dated 30.12.2000 issued by UPPCL, copy of which is on record. In pursuance to the appointment orders dated 30.12.2000, the petitioners no. 5. The petitioners no. 1 and 2 were appointed as Junior Engineer Trainee (E&M) whereas petitioners no. 3 and 4 were appointed as Assistant Engineer Trainee (E&M) vide orders dated 30.12.2000 issued by UPPCL, copy of which is on record. In pursuance to the appointment orders dated 30.12.2000, the petitioners no. 1, 2, 3 and 4 joined on 30.04.2001, 24.01.2001, 18.01.2001 and 23.01.2001 as Trainee Junior Engineers and Trainee Assistant Engineers. Petitioners were substantively appointed in the cadre of service of UPPCL on 06.03.2002. Now, in terms of Section 23 of the Act 1999 a transfer scheme was framed by the Stated Government and issued on 14.01.2000. This transfer scheme inter alia dealt with transfer of personnel of erstwhile Board to UPPCL. Petitioners were never appointed under the Board. 6. On 03.02.2000, UPPCL issued an Office Memorandum adopting some Rules and Regulations as were applicable in the Board. This included the U.P. Electricity Board Services of Engineers Regulations, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations of 1970') as also pensionary and G.P.F. Rules adopted by the Board. These were to remain in operation till the UPPCL frames its own regulations. 7. It is not out of place to mention that the Act 1999 does not provide for framing of any Regulations by the UPPCL as regards conditions of service of the employees. Such Regulations are, however, framed by the Board of UPPCL under the provisions contained in the Articles and Memorandum of Association as it is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. 8. At this very stage it needs to be mentioned that Regulations of 1970 were in force for the purposes of selection and appointment of personnel, including the petitioners, in view of the Office Memo dated 03.02.2000 as there were no other Rules applicable nor any such Rules had been framed by UPPCL. 9. At this very stage, it also needs to be mentioned that while issuing Office Memorandum dated 03.02.2000, it was mentioned that the Rules and Regulations adopted therein including the pensionary rules as were applicable in the erstwhile Board they would continue only till the Board of UPPCL makes its own Regulations. 10. On 01.12.2001 the Board of UPPCL took a decision that the pensionary scheme would not apply to the personnel who have been appointed after 14.01.2000 and that a decision had been taken to apply EPF scheme upon them. 10. On 01.12.2001 the Board of UPPCL took a decision that the pensionary scheme would not apply to the personnel who have been appointed after 14.01.2000 and that a decision had been taken to apply EPF scheme upon them. Obviously, the EPF scheme would be in terms of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1952'). This decision is annexed as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit and was taken in the 26th meeting of the Board of UPPCL. This decision has never been challenged. 11. Now, as already stated, there is no statutory provision for making Regulations in the Act 1999 governing the condition of service which includes the post retirement benefits, but such Regulations are made by the Board of UPPCL in pursuance to the provision contained in the Memorandum and Articles of its Association, therefore, this Court has no hesitation in saying that this decision dated 01.12.2001 by the Board was a Regulation as it regulated the condition of service of its personnel and nothing has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners to persuade the Court to take any contrary view. 12. Consequent to it, on 22.02.2002, an Office Memo was issued in pursuance to the directions of the Board of UPPCL that in place of General Provident Fund Scheme and U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 and New Family Pension Scheme, 1965, the Employees Provident Fund and related scheme shall be applicable with immediate effect to Officers and employees appointed after 14.01.2000. 13. However, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vide his letter issued on 23rd April, 2002 informed the Corporation that this was not possible as the Corporation was exempted from application of the Act 1952 under Section 16(c), but, as per Section 1(4) of the Act 1952, voluntary application of the Act 1952 is permissible subject to the conditions mentioned therein. 14. It is said by UPPCL that the Provident Fund Commissioner, in fact, had suggested that a Contributory Provident Fund scheme may be formed for the new employees as per the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. 15. 14. It is said by UPPCL that the Provident Fund Commissioner, in fact, had suggested that a Contributory Provident Fund scheme may be formed for the new employees as per the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. 15. Accordingly, on 06.06.2003 an Office Memo was issued in this regard that the EPF scheme cannot be applied in view of the difficulties pointed out by the Provident Fund Commissioner and accordingly a decision had been taken to apply Contributory Provident Fund scheme for those Officers and employees who have been appointed after 14.01.2000. Modalities in this regard were also mentioned in the said order. 16. Prior to issuance of this Office Memo dated 06.06.2003, the petitioners came to be substantively appointed in the cadre of service of UPPCL on 06.03.2002 and contributory provident fund scheme was introduced thereafter on 06.06.2003. 17. On 18.06.2004, an Office Memo was issued by the UPPCL with reference to the earlier Office Memo dated 06.06.2003 with regard to application of contributory provident fund scheme and modalities in respect thereof were detailed therein. The scheme was applied to all the Officers and employees who had been appointed after 14.01.2000. It was made applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2004, however, with the condition that if any Officer or employee had been appointed prior to 01.04.2004 and was desirous of depositing his part of the contribution, then the employer's contribution would also be deposited to the same extent, meaning thereby for the period prior to 01.04.2004. This according to the petitioners' counsel amounted to giving retrospective effect to the said Rules, which was impermissible. 18. Now, the petition having been not pressed on behalf of petitioners no. 5 to 8, the only orders/Rules under challenge are the order dated 18.06.2004 and the U.P. Power Corporation Limited Contributory Provident Fund Rules, 2004 appended thereto and the order dated 03.10.2014 by which the representation of the Union claiming benefit of the earlier pensionary Rules has been rejected. 19. The contention of Mr. 5 to 8, the only orders/Rules under challenge are the order dated 18.06.2004 and the U.P. Power Corporation Limited Contributory Provident Fund Rules, 2004 appended thereto and the order dated 03.10.2014 by which the representation of the Union claiming benefit of the earlier pensionary Rules has been rejected. 19. The contention of Mr. Mathur was two fold; firstly, that the entry point in the service is as Trainee Engineer and, therefore, even though the petitioners were substantively appointed subsequently on 06.03.2002, as, they had applied for selection and appointment in 1998 under a legitimate expectation that the Rules as applicable at that time, including the pensionary rules, will apply and as they were appointed as Trainee Engineer on 30.12.2000, prior to 01.12.2001 and 06.06.2003, therefore, in view of the Office Memo dated 03.02.2000 by which the pensionary rules applicable in the Board were adopted by the Board of UPPCL for its employees, they were entitled to the benefit of the said pensionary rules and not the subsequent decisions firstly applying EPF scheme and thereafter the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) which were not applicable to them. 20. In this regard, he referred to Section 23(7)(c) of the Act 1999, according to which, while making the provision for transfer scheme the State Government was obliged to protect all benefits of service accrued before the transfer for all purposes including payment of any or all terminal benefits. He also invited attention of the Court to Clause (a) of Section 23 (7), according to which, the terms and conditions of service of the personnel were not to be less favourable to the terms and conditions which were applicable to them immediately before the transfer. 21. Secondly, he submitted that while giving seniority in the cadre of service, the petitioners were given such seniority with effect from the date of their initial appointment as Trainee officer, therefore, this according to him, corroborates his stand that it is the initial entry point which is relevant for applicability of rules pertaining to retiral benefits and subsequent Rules of 2004 or orders issued in this regard could not be applied to the petitioners. In this very context, he submitted that the Rules of 2004 were not in force when the petitioners were initially appointed on 30.12.2000 as Trainee Officers and thereafter on 06.03.2002 in substantive capacity, therefore, they are not applicable to them for calculation and determination of their retiral benefits and doing so is contrary to the transfer scheme dated 14.01.2000. 22. In this regard he referred to the transfer scheme dated 14.01.2000, especially para 2(e) which defines personnel to include those trainees, if any, for recruitment in the 'Board'. This according to the petitioners' counsel, Mr. Mathur, included the petitioners who were appointed as Trainees on 30.12.2000. He then referred to para 6 pertaining to transfer of personnel and other provisions of the scheme, especially para 6(10). According to him, the rights of the petitioners under the pensionary rules, as adopted by Office Memo dated 03.02.2000, stood protected by this transfer scheme in the light of the statutory provisions referred earlier. 23. Apart from this no other argument was advanced by Mr. Mathur. 24. According to Mr. Neerav Chitravanshi, the petitioners were not members of service till 06.03.2002 when they were substantively appointed. There is no provision in the rules for counting seniority from the date of appointment as a Trainee Engineer. If they are being given such seniority then it is inexplicable as to how this has been done, but this should not persuade the Court to give any finding contrary to the Rules. On 01.12.2001 itself, a decision was taken not to apply earlier pensionary scheme and to apply EPF scheme, however, subsequently it was found that the Act 1952 was not applicable, therefore, CPF scheme was put into force vide Office Memo dated 06.06.2003 and subsequently on 18.06.2004 rules in this regard were made. Conditions no. 2 and 3 of the appointment order of the petitioners dated 06.03.2002 itself binds them by the Rules, Regulations and Orders issued by the Corporation in future from time to time, therefore, the petitioners cannot raise any claim contrary to the conditions of their appointment which they never challenged. In fact, decision of the Board dated 01.12.2001 has also not been challenged nor has the notification by which the Act 1999 was made effective from 14.01.2000 been challenged, therefore, the claim is without any and factual basis. In fact, decision of the Board dated 01.12.2001 has also not been challenged nor has the notification by which the Act 1999 was made effective from 14.01.2000 been challenged, therefore, the claim is without any and factual basis. No deductions have been made from the salary of the petitioners while they were on training, towards EPF or CPF. 25. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records this Court is of the opinion that appointment as a Trainee Engineer is not a substantive appointment in the cadre of service. According to Regulation 1(23) of the Regulations 1970, the term Members of the service has been defined to mean a person appointed in a substantive capacity under the provisions of these Regulations or of Regulations and orders in force previous to the commencement of these Regulations, to a post in any class in the cadres of the service. Further Regulation 1(30) of the Regulations 1970 defines 'Trained Engineer' to mean who after a course of successful training under the Board is declared fit for appointment as an Assistant Engineer under the Board. Thus, appointee as Trainee Engineer is to undergo training so as to assess fitness of such person for substantive appointment in the cadre of service and the appointment as a Trainee Engineer is not a substantive appointment. No doubt, initial recruitment is made as Trainee Engineer, but such appointment is not a substantive appointment as is evident from the aforesaid provisions. The order of appointment of petitioners as Trainee dated 30.12.2000 also makes this fact clear by the recitals under the heading ' v Prashikshan'. 26. The order of UPPCL dated 03.02.2000 is with reference to para 6(10) of the transfer scheme dated 14.01.2000. The petitioners were never appointed even as Trainee Engineers under the erstwhile Board, therefore, there was no question of application of such transfer scheme which was for transfer of personnel of Board to UPPCL consequent to coming into force of the Act 1999 and establishment of UPPCL as successor to the Board. Even otherwise, the rules which were adopted by UPPCL were only applicable till the Regulations were made by the Board of UPPCL i.e. newly constituted Corporation. Even otherwise, the rules which were adopted by UPPCL were only applicable till the Regulations were made by the Board of UPPCL i.e. newly constituted Corporation. On 01.12.2001 the Board took a decision not to apply the earlier pension scheme, and instead, to apply the EPF scheme, but, for the reasons already mentioned hereinabove the Act 1952 was not applicable, therefore, a decision was taken on 06.06.2003 i.e. after the substantive appointment of the petitioners on 06.03.2002, for applying Contributory Provident Fund scheme and thereafter the Rules were made in this regard in 2004. The decision not to apply the earlier Pension Scheme/Rules as adopted vide Office Memo dated 03.02.2000 was taken on 01.12.2001 itself in the 26th meeting of the Board of UPPCL, therefore, this was a decision taken prior to substantive appointment of the petitioner on 06.03.2002. Moreover, this decision has not been challenged by the petitioners. 27. Moreover, condition no. 2 of the order of substantive appointment dated 06.03.2002 clearly binds the petitioners with the Rules, Regulations and Orders made by UPPCL in future and the employer is well within its rights to frame rules or regulations with regard to conditions of service which include retiral benefits. CPF scheme has been made applicable to the appointees after 01.04.2004, but, in the same vein it has also been provided that those appointed prior to 01.04.2004, if they are desirous of depositing their contribution towards the provident fund, UPPCL (the employer) shall also deposit equivalent part of it, therefore, interest of the petitioners has been protected. 28. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the Rules 2004 have been given retrospective effect. In fact, after the decision dated 01.12.2001, the adoption of the Pensionary Rules as applicable in the Board vide office memo dated 03.02.2000 came to an end in view of the conditions mentioned therein itself, meaning thereby, after 01.12.2001 there were no rules pertaining to retiral benefits of the Offices and employees of UPPCL. Accordingly, the same have been subsequently framed in 2004 after the decision dated 06.06.2003 and given effect as aforesaid. Condition no. 2 of their substantive appointment dated 06.03.2002 binds the petitioners to be governed by such Rules and orders. 29. Accordingly, the same have been subsequently framed in 2004 after the decision dated 06.06.2003 and given effect as aforesaid. Condition no. 2 of their substantive appointment dated 06.03.2002 binds the petitioners to be governed by such Rules and orders. 29. In fact, as a Trainee Engineer, as already stated, they were not members of service and it is only on 06.03.2002 when they were substantively appointed that they become such member and prior to it i.e. 01.12.2001 the Board had taken a decision not to apply the earlier pension scheme instead to apply EPF and thereafter, as this was not possible, a decision was taken to apply CPF, as already discussed. 30. The petitioners have not brought anything in notice to establish that even as Trainee Engineer deductions were made from their remuneration or salary whatever it may have been called towards pensionary benefits under the old pension scheme or rules. In fact condition of their appointment dated 30.12.2000 as mentioned therein belies any such possibility. Even increment was not payable to them as trainees. 31. The appointment of the petitioners as Trainee Engineer was made on 30.12.2000 by UPPCL which had come into existence after coming into force of the Act 1999 and the transfer scheme dated 14.01.2000, therefore, merely because they had applied for selection and appointment in pursuance to an advertisement issued in 1998 by the Board is of no consequence, as, the first appointment as Trainee Engineer vide order dated 30.12.2000 was also subsequent to coming into force of the Act 1999 and the transfer scheme dated 14.01.2000. In fact the result itself was declared on 19.12.2000 and 30.12.2000. In view of this reliance placed upon Section 23(7)(c) of the Act 1999 and provisions of the transfer scheme dated 14.01.2000 is meaningless as they were not covered by the transfer scheme which applied to transfer of personnel of Board to UPPCL. Petitioners were not appointed by the Board but by UPPCL. 32. As regards claim of the petitioners' counsel that they have been given seniority with effect from the date of their initial appointment as Trainee Engineer, Regulation 19 of the Regulations 1970 is with regard to seniority of Officers on their appointment to the service which is to be determined according to the date of the order of appointment to a particular post in the cadres of service subject to the proviso mentioned therein. Seniority Rules nowhere provide for determination of seniority with effect from the date of appointment as Trainee Engineer. These Regulations do not contain any such provision for giving seniority from the said date, therefore, this by itself does not enure to the benefit of the petitioners so far as the issue involved in this case is concerned, for the reasons already discussed hereinabove. 33. Petitioners do not have any enforceable right to claim benefit of the earlier pension scheme or Rules in the facts and circumstances already discussed. The impugned orders/ Rules do not require any interference. 34. The petition is accordingly dismissed.