ORDER : 1. Nineteen years ago, grievance of the petitioners herein arose out of a notification dated 25.06.2005 (Annex. 6), vide which the Public Health and Engineering Department (for short-PHED) invited tenders from approved contractors for the operation and maintenance of the urban water supply system in Takhatgarh and to hire fresh work force by ignoring the existing one. Fearful of their disruption in service, they, inter alia, seek a direction commanding the respondents, particularly PHED, to absorb them on equivalent posts and not to terminate their services, in any manner, whatsoever, and allow them to work and pay them their monthly salary as before. 2. Succinctly, relevant facts, as pleaded in the petition are: 2.1 Petitioner No. 1 was initially appointed as a Helper/Pump operator on daily wages by the respondent/Municipal Board on 16.08.88. After two years of satisfactory service, he was appointed on a fixed salary of Rs. 650/- per month with effect from 01.10.90. Subsequently, he was placed in the regular pay scale of Rs. 775-1025/- with effect from 01.10.92. He was further accorded revised Pay-scale of Rs. 800-1250/- with effect from 01.11.93, and later in the year 1998 revised pay-scale of Rs. 2650-4000 with effect from 01.09.96. After completing nine years of service, he was granted the first selection grade and placed in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/-. Petitioner No. 2 and 3 were also similarly placed, except for the fact that their dates of initial appointment (dated 07.07.1988 and 03.09.1982 respectively) and grant of subsequent revised regular pay scales vary. 2.3 All the petitioners thus held the post of Helper/Pump operator in their substantive capacity against permanent posts in the respondent Municipal Board. 2.4 In the year 2005, the Board proposed to transfer the water supply project to the Public Health and Engineering Department (PHED) of the Government of Rajasthan. PHED though accepted the proposed transfer on 20.04.2005, but included a condition that none of the Board’s employees would be absorbed. The Executive Officer of the Board requested the absorption of employees into PHED, citing previous transfers where employees had been absorbed. However, PHED responded on 11.05.2005, stating that the Finance Department had directed against absorbing municipal board employees. Regardless, the respondent Board adopted a resolution on 14.06.2005, urging the Rajasthan Government to request PHED to absorb employees from the Municipal Board, but no action was taken by PHED. However, PHED responded on 11.05.2005, stating that the Finance Department had directed against absorbing municipal board employees. Regardless, the respondent Board adopted a resolution on 14.06.2005, urging the Rajasthan Government to request PHED to absorb employees from the Municipal Board, but no action was taken by PHED. 2.7 While awaiting a favorable decision from PHED, the petitioners discovered that PHED issued a tender notice on 25.06.05 for the operation and maintenance of the water supply system in Takhatgarh. Instead of absorbing the existing staff, the PHED decided to outsource the operation to contractors. This left the petitioners, who had already served the Board for over 17 years, in a state of uncertainty. Aggrieved, petitioners then approached this court vide the present petition. 3. Stand taken in the reply by the respondent No. 1 and 2, inter alia, while resisting the petition, is that the matter was considered at the level of the State Government, and the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Public Health & Engineering Department passed an order on 20.04.2005 (Annexure-1), transferring the water supply scheme from the Municipal Board to the PHED. The said order contained seven conditions, one of which clearly states that the employees/staff of the Municipal Board, Takhatgarh, would not be absorbed into the Public Health & Engineering Department. 3.1 Furthermore, it is an admitted fact that the petitioners were engaged by and worked under the Municipal Board, Takhatgarh. They were thus not employees of the government, and therefore, no question arose regarding their absorption by the respondent department. 4. Stand taken in the reply by respondent No. 3 is that on 14.06.2005, the Board passed Resolution No. 4 to transfer the water supply scheme to PHED. The petitioners have long served as Assistant Pump Drivers/operators in the Municipal Board, and they possess significant experience in their roles. In sismlar circumstances, when other water supply schemes, such as those in Sirohi and Ganganagar, were transferred to PHED, the employees of those Municipalities were also transferred and absorbed into PHED. Thus, the petitioners herein should also be transferred/absorbed along with the transfer of water supply scheme, as per the Municipal Board's resolution, which is in the public interest. 5. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and have perused the case file. 6. Thus, the petitioners herein should also be transferred/absorbed along with the transfer of water supply scheme, as per the Municipal Board's resolution, which is in the public interest. 5. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and have perused the case file. 6. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners informs the Court that during pendency of the writ proceedings before this Court over the past 19 years, petitioner No. 2 has expired. As regards petitioner No. 3, she is under instructions not to press the petition as his services were allowed to be continued until he attained the age of superannuation and retired from Municipal Board, Takhatgarh. 6.1 However, she would urge that even the petitioner No. 1 is also entitled to the same treatment on the ground of parity as has been accorded to petitioner No. 3. Therefore, petitioner No. 1 should also be allowed to continue to serve in the Municipal Board until attaining the age of superannuation. 6.2 She points out that the services of the petitioners were protected and allowed to be continued in the Municipal Board due to the interim protection granted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 04.08.2005, which reads as under: “The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the employees of the Municipal Board, Takhatgarh working as Assistant Pump Driver. The respondent Board proposed to transfer the water supply project to PHED. Vide order dated 20.04.2005, the proposal to take over the water supply project of the town was accepted by the PHED. However, in the said order a condition was incorporated that the PHED will not take the services of employees of the respondent Board. Vide letter dated 11.05.2005, the respondent No. 2 informed that finance department has given a directions that employees of the Municipal Board working under water supply project should not be taken in the services in the PHED on the transfer of the project. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that whenever the water works including the water supply organisation of the Municipal Board were transferred to PHED. The existing employees of the Board were taken on deputation without any deputation allowance till they were finally absorbed as per the provisions of Rules of 1977 notified by Notification dated 28.10.1977. The existing employees of the Board were taken on deputation without any deputation allowance till they were finally absorbed as per the provisions of Rules of 1977 notified by Notification dated 28.10.1977. While the petitioners were waiting for their absorption in PHED in conformity with the Rules of 1977 a notice inviting tender from the contractors for operation and maintenance of the urban water supply system, Takhatgarh was issued. The petitioners apprehends that their services may not be absorbed and they may be declared surplus. In the of the above submissions, admit. Issue notices to the respondents. Issue notice of stay application also. Notices be given ‘dasti’. Meanwhile, the status quo, as it exists today, shall be maintained till next date of hearing. Put up after six weeks, as prayed.” 6.3 Subsequently, the aforesaid interim order dated 04.08.2005 was confirmed by another Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.12.2005 with the clarification that status quo regarding the services of the petitioner shall be maintained, which reads as under: “Heard learned counsel for the parties. The interim order dated 04.08.2005 is confirmed with the clarification that status quo regarding services of the petitioner shall be maintained.” 7. After hearing both the sides, what transpires is a controversy which lies in a very narrow compass i.e. whether the petitioner No. 1 is entitled to parity with petitioner No. 3, who during the pendency of the writ petition continued to serve with the Municipal Board and thereafter, superannuated and was conferred all the retiral benefits in accordance with the applicable rules. 8. On a Court query, learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute that petitioner No. 3 indeed superannuated and has been given the said retiral benefits. Petitioner No. 2 has expired during the pendency of the writ petition. 9. It turns out that petitioner No. 1 is left with only 1 year of service before he superannuated. In the premise, I see no reason as to why the petitioner No. 1 be also not accorded the same benefit as is already accorded to petitioner No. 3 on the grounds of parity alone. 10. It is accordingly so ordered. The respondents shall treat the petitioner No. 1 in parity with petitioner No. 3 and confer the same benefits in accordance with the same rules as have already been accorded to petitioner No. 3. 11. Petition is disposed of. 12. 10. It is accordingly so ordered. The respondents shall treat the petitioner No. 1 in parity with petitioner No. 3 and confer the same benefits in accordance with the same rules as have already been accorded to petitioner No. 3. 11. Petition is disposed of. 12. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.