ANIL KUMAR SINGH Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Vindhya Keshari Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manu Shanker Mishra, learned counsel for the Bihar Renewable Energy Development Agency (hereinafter to be referred to as BREDA').

(2.) In this writ application, the petitioner has assailed the correctness of the two orders dated 31.3.1993 (Annexure-10) and 1.9.1995 (Annexures-18 & 18A), whereby and whereunder, Nanhak Sharma and Mahendra Prasad Sinha, while continuing on deputation, have been absorbed on the post of Technician in BREDA. The petitioner has also sought for a consequential relief of his being absorbed in the services of BREDA with effect from 1.4.1993.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner once being brought on deputation from his parent employer and having been given some sort of assurance by way of his consideration of case for absorption, could not have given an unceremonial send off specially when the respondents have absorbed similarly situated persons on deputation including Nanhak Sharma and Mahendra Prasad Sinha. He has also submitted that it was in fact the scheme of BREDA well set out in the Article of Association that its activities would be maintained and carried out by use of deputed employees and such deputed employees, with the consent of the parent employer, could be absorbed in the service of BREDA. In this regard, he has also highlighted the letter written by the authorities of BREDA to the parent employer of the petitioner seeking their consent for absorption of the services of the petitioner in BREDA and on that basis, he has proceeded to make submission that the petitioner had a right to be absorbed in the BREDA. In this context, he has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Shahi & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.,1995 1 PLJR 108.