Denying past service benefits would violate fundamental rights and constitute discrimination, as established by precedents and constitutional provisions.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondents to give the benefit of past service to the petitioners rendered by them in the parent department and to consider the petitioners for promotion or promote them when their juniors were considered and promoted.

( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

( 3 ) THE petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were appointed as Assistant Engineer in U. P. Jal Nigam on 5. 2. 1979 and 12. 12. 1978 and the petitioner No. 3 in 1978 and since then they are functioning as such. After appointment the petitioners were sent on deputation to the Ghaziabad Development authority (G. D. A.) as Assistant Engineer vide Annexures-2a to 2b. The post of Assistant engineer in G. D. A. is in the Centralised Services under the U. P. Planning and Development act, 1973. The petitioners post is transferable throughout U. P. It is alleged in para 9 of the petition that since the petitioners appointment in G. D. A. had been made on deputation, a decision was taken by the Government to absorb technical employees. The State Government submitted a proposal on the representation of the employees including the petitioners for absorption. The respondents by means of letter dated 27. 8. 1987, informed the petitioner No. 1 and by letter dated 28. 11. 1991 to the petitioner No. 2 that absorption in the centralised service can be done subject to certain restrictions, namely that his past service rendered in Jal Nigam will not be reckoned for the purpose of determination of seniority, and that the petitioners will be placed below officers who were appointed on regular basis in centralised service after the petitioners absorption. As regards petitioner No. 2 he was not given any such proposal. True copies of the letters are Annexures-4 and 4a to the petition. The petitioners replies are annexures-5 and 5a. By letters dated 18. 3. 1994 and 3. 4. 1987 the State Government absorbed the petitioners in the Centralised service as Assistant Engineer incorporating two conditions in the order, namely, that the petitioners will be deemed to be absorbed in the centralised services from the date of the order and further that their past services in the parent department will be ignored for the purposes of determining their seniority. True copy of the letters are annexures-6a and 6b. Pursuance to the order, the petitioners made representation for the purposes of accepting their resignation and this letter was sent by the petitioners to the superintending Engineer of the U. P. Jal Nigam vide Annexures-7 and 7b. In para 14 of the petition it is stated that the petitioners had been appointed in the centralised service on deputation in 1986. The above conditions were imposed in 1987 by the State Government for absorption and hence the petitioners had no option but to accept the same, otherwise they would be reverted back to their parent department. Subsequently it is alleged in para 15 of the petition that in two similar matters, the State Government had categorically taken a decision under Rule 37 (3) granting benefit of past service for all purposes rendered in the parent department or organisation. Copies of the orders dated 2. 6. 1994 and 6. 11. 1995 are Annexures-8 and 9. The petitioners made representation raising their grievance vide Annexures-10, 10a and 10b in which it is alleged that there is discrimination against the petitioner in this respect. It is alleged in para 20 of the petition that the above two clauses are totally arbitrary, unfair and in violation of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is alleged that once a deputationist is absorbed in service his past services rendered by him in the parent department has to be counted for seniority and other matters. True copy of the order dated 8. 5. 1992 is Annexure-11. It is alleged in para 23 of the petition that ad hoc appointees were being given the benefit of their ad hoc temporary service, and hence there was no justification for denying the