CWP No. 518 of 1999 1.5.2008 Present: Mr. R. K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Y. P. S. Dhaulta, Central Govt. Counsel for respondent No.1. Mr. N. K. Sood, Advocate for respondents No. 2 & 3 The petitioners joined the army service in the year 1967 and were discharged in the years 1979 and 1980 respectively. Thereafter, they joined the Bhakra Construction Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘BCB’) and they continued to work as work charge employees till the year 1984. In 31st May, 1984, however, during this period by a letter dated 18th April, 1984, the petitioners were offered the status of work charge employees with the Bhakra Beas Management Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘BBMB’). The same was accepted by them. Father of petitioners No.1 to 6 joined BBMB in the month of June, 1984 and petitioner No.7 joined in the month of May, 1984. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the Rules contained in Annexure-PE known as Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession Rules 1965). During the course of the arguments, Shri N. K. Sood, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 & 3 brought our attention to the fact that aforesaid Rules were repelled by the Punjab Government’s Notification dated 12th February, 1982. Learned counsel for the petitioners inspite of the same insisted that the petitioners shall still get the benefit of 1965 Rules for the reason that after discharge they had joined BBMB and the said Rules were in existence at that particular time. From the perusal of the offer dated 18th April, 1984, we find that the petitioners were offered a new job with BBMB, wherein it is provided that their continuity of service would not be interrupted on joining the Board. In fact it was with respect to the fixation of emoluments and other benefits. However, it does not give any right to the petitioners to take the benefit of 1965 Rules, which have already been repelled. It was further clarified in the service conditions that said offer was for the purpose of their seniority Unit No.1 in Beas Project would be treated as a separate Unit. In the light of the above discussion, the learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to substantiate his aforesaid point in issue. In the light of the above, the writ petition fails and accordingly no interference is warranted under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. . ( Jagdish Bhalla ), CJ. ( Sanjay Karol ), J. May 1, 2008 (R/rana)