NEYAZ AHMAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) PETITIONER has challenged orders and decisions contained in Annexures 3, 4 and 5 which have the effect of terminating petitioners deputation from service under the Bihar Rajya Jal Parishad to one under the Treasury Officer, Gaya under the control of the Finance Department, Government of Bihar. It is not in dispute that a deputationist has very limited rights based upon policy decisions and rules of absorption if they have statutory force.

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioner reliance was also placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rameshwar Prasad vs. MD, UP Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. reported in (1999)8 SCC 381 to submit that whenever there is prejudice to the deputed employee on account of delay in repatriation and where there are rules framed for absorption in pursuance of the borrowing departments policy then absorption cannot be denied without justifiable reasons. There is no dispute with the proposition laid in the said judgment. But the facts of this case are different. There are no clear policy decisions for absorption except a vague communication in Annexure -2 that in future it may be considered if the conduct is good. There is no time limit of five years for losing lien in the parent organisation and petitioners service was recalled by the parent department within four years as appears from Annexure C.