Letters Patent Appeal No.608 OF 2006 -------------------- Against the judgment and order dated 26-7-2006 Passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7462 of 2000 by a Bench of this Court. ---------------- AVINASH VATSYAYAN, SON OF LATE SHIV NANDAN MISHRA, RESIDENT OF 81, JAGAT AMARAWATI, MAHESH NAGAR, POLICE STATION,KOTWALI,DISTRICT- PATNA………. APPELLANT Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT,GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT,GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.. 4. THE BISCOMAUN, THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR,PATNA,BIHAR. 5. THE ADMINISTRATOR,BISCOMAUN, PATNA. BIHAR… RESPTS. 6. DINESH CHANDRA SINGH, SON OF DR. LALA PD. SINGH R/O + P.S. IDHEDHI, DISTRICT- BUXAR… PERFORMA RESPONDENT WITH LPA No.628 oF 2006 1. JAINATH TIWARY, SON OF SRI GANESH TIWARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MATULI, P.S. SIDHWALIA,DISTT. GOPALGANJ 2 SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH SON OF SRI SHEO SHANKAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NAINI, P.S. MUFFASIL,DIST. SARAN- CHHAPRA………………………………………….. APPELLANTS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS VICE-CHAIRMAN, MAURYALOK, PATNA. 5. THE VICE-CHAIRMAN, THE PATNA. REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MAURYALOK, PATNA. 6. THE BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING UNION THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR, PATNA 7. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING UNION, PATNA………………….. RESPONDENTS. 8. SRI KAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, SON OF SRI SHANKAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KOHARGARH, P.S. EKMA, DIST.CHAPRA 9. SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH, SON OF SRI MANINDRA NATH SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- MACKCHUND TOLI, P.S. CHUTIA, DISTRICT- RANCHI…………… PETITIONERS….. RESPONDENTS. WITH LPA No.680 oF 2006 SURENDRA KUMAR, SON OF SRI DUDHESHWAR PRASAD, 2 RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- TITAI BIGHA, P.S. MAKHDUMPUR, DISTRICT- JEHANABAD……………………………. APPELLANT VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT,GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.. 4.THE PATNA. REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS VICE-CHAIRMAN, MAURYALOK, PATNA 5.THE GAYA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS VICE-CHAIRMAN, GAYA 6. THE BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING UNION THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR PATNA 7. SRI NARENDRA SINGH, S/O SRI YADUNATH SARAN SINGH, R/O MOHALLA- RAJENDRA NAGAR,P.S. KADAMKUAN,DISTT.PATNA 8. THE GAYA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GAYA ……………. RESPONDENTS. WITH LPA No.720 oF 2006 1. SHIV SHANKAR PRASAD SINGH , SON OF LATE SURYA NR.SINGH, PRESENTLY POSTED AS SENIOR LECTURER, GOVT. POLYTECHNIC, MUZAFFARPUR 2. SHAILESH BIHARI PANDAY, SON OF SRI SWAIMBER PANDEY EARLIER WORKING AS SENIOR LECTURER, GOVT. POLYTECHNIC, MUZAFFAPUR, PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER, GOVT. POLYTECHNIC, GULZARBAGH, PATNA.-7 3. SUSHIL KUMAR MISHRA, SON OF SRI INDRA NARAYAN MISHRA, PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER, GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC, GAYA 4. AWADHESH PD.SINGH, SON OF SRI BANWARI SINGH, PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER, GOVT. POLYTECHNIC, BARAUNI ……………………………………….. APPELLANTS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT,GOVT. OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY,COOPERATIVE DEPT. GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA. 4. THE BISCOMAUN THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR,PATNA. 5. THE ADMINISTRATOR, BISCOMAUN- PATNA….. RESPTS. WITH LPA No.787 oF 2006 1. SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA , SON OF JALESHWAR PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA SRI NAGAR HATA, P.S. KHAZANCHI HAT, DISTRICT- PURNEA, PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER, GOVT. POLYTECHNIC, PURNEA… APPELLANT Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THJROUGH SECRETARY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3 2. THE SECRETARY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE BIHAR STATE PHARMACEUTICAL AND CHEMICAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE PHARMACEUTICAL AND CHEMICAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, BIHAR, PATNA…………………………………………….. RESPONDENT. WITH LPA No.788 oF 2006 1. TRIVENI PRASAD SINGH , SON OF LATE BHIKSHUK PRASAD SINGH, PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER, GOVT. POLYTECHNIC, SAHARSA 2. RAMESH KUMAR, SON OF LATE PRABHU MAHTO, PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER, GOVT. POLYTECHNIC, GAYA………………………………………………..APPELLANTS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE BIHAR STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, BIHAR, PATNA. 6. AMRENDRA KUMAR SINGH, SON OF SRI CHANRA KISHORE PD. SINGH EARLIER WORKING AS LECTURER, GOVT. POLYTECHNIC, SAHARSA, PRESENTLY RETIRED… RESPTS. WITH LPA No.795 oF 2006 1. KAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH SON OF SRI SHANKAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KOHARGARH, P.S. EKMA, DISTT- CHAPRA, AT PRESENT- RESIDING AT ROAD NO. 14, RAJIV NAGAR, P.S. DIGHA, DISTRICT- PATNA. 2. SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH SON OF SRI MANINDRA NATH SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- MACKCHUND TOLI, P.S. CHUTIYA, DISTRICT- RANCHI……………………………………APPELLANTS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA., 3. THE SECRETARY, COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THROUGH ITS VICE- CHAIRMAN, MAURYALOK, PATNA. 4 5. THE VICE-CHAIRMAN, PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MAURYA LOK, PATNA. 6. THE BIHAR STATE COOPERATIVE MARKETING UNION LIMITED, THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR, BIHAR, PATNA. 7. THE ADMINISTRATOR,BISCOMAUN, PATNA 8. SRI NARAYAN YADAV S/O NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT, MINISTER URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND CHAIRMAN, P.R.D.A. PATNA R/O 22 BAILEY ROAD, SHASHTRINAGAR, P.S. SHASHTRINAGAR, DISTT. PATNA… ………………………………………… RESPONDENTJS. 9. SATYENDRA KR. SINGH S/O SHRI SHEO SHANKAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NAINI, P.S. MUFASSIL, DISTRICT- SARAN, CHAPRA 10. JAINATH TIWARY SON OF SRI GANESH TIWARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MATAULI, P.S. SIDHWALIA, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ…………………………………. RESPONDENTS. WITH LPA No.1110 oF 2004 1. RAM VINAY ROY SON OF LATE CHITAN RAI, REISEDENT OF VILLAGE PAVITRA NAGAR, POST. OFFICE, HARNAHI, P.S. SHEOHAR, DISTT.- SHEOHAR, AN EMPLOYEE OF BIHAR STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. SINHA LIBRARY ROAD, PATNA. ON DEPUTATION TO BIHAR STATE HYDROELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD. SONE BHAWAN, BIRCHAND PATEL MARG, PATNA. 2 JAIRAM CHAUDHARY SON OF KEDAR CHAUDHARY, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA YADUBANSHI NAGAR, P.O. DIGHAGHAT, P.S. DIGHA, DISTT. PATNA, AN EMPLOYEE OF BIHAR STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, SINHA LIBARARY ROAD, PATNA. ON DEPUTATION TO BIHAR STATE HYDROELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD. SONE BHAWAN, BIRCHAND PATEL MARG, PATNA. 3 DEVENDRA PRASAD SINGH SON OF LATE KAMLA SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA DIGHAGHAT ( AKHARA ROAD), P.O. DIHGA GHAT, P.S. DIGHA, PATNA, AN EMPLYEE OF BIHAR STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, SINHA LIBRARY ROAD, PATNA. ON DEPUTATION OF BIHAR STATE HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, SONE BHAWAN, BIRCHAND PATEL MARG, PATNA. 4 SHYAMDEO PRASAD SON OF LATE MOHIT RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAKHDUMPUR, P.O. DIGHA GHAT, P.S. DIGHA, DIST. PATNA, AN EMPLYEE OF BIHAR STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, SINHA LIBRARY ROAD, PATNA. ON DEPUTATION TO BIHAR STATE HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, SONE BHAWAN, BIRCHAND PATEL MARG, PATNA. 5 CHANDRA KANT LAL DAS SON OF LATE KALA NANDLAL DAS, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA NEPALI NAGAR, DIGHA ASHIANA ROAD, P.O. ASHIANA NAGAR, P.S. DIGHA, DISTT. PATNA, AN EMPLOYEE OF BIHAR STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, SINHA LIBRARY ROAD, PATNA, ON DEPUTATION TO BIHAR STATE HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER 5 CORPORATION LIMITED, SONE BHAWAN, BIRCHAND PATEL MARG, PATNA. 6 SHRINATH RAI SON OF BHOLA RAI, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA DIGHA GHAT, HARIPUR COLONY, POST OFFICE DIGHA GHAT, P.S. DIGHAGHAT, DISTT. PATNA. , AN EMPLOYEE OF BIHAR STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, SINHA LIBRARY ROAD, PATNA ON DEPUTATION TO BIHAR STATE HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, SONE BHAWAN, BIRCHAND PATEL MARG- PATNA. 7 HIRA MANI DEVI WIFE OF LATE UPENDRA PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAJEYAN, P.O. RAJEYAN, P.S. PIRO, DISTT. BHOJPUR, AN EMPLOYEE OF BIHAR STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, SINHA LIBRARY ROAD, PATNA, ON DEPUTATION TO BIHAR STATE HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, SONE BHAWAN, BIRCHAND PATEL MARG, PATNA. 8 SACHCHIDANAND RAI, SON OF RAM KRIPAL RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAKATA DIYARA, P.O. DIGHA, P.S. DIGHA, DISTT. PATNA., AN EMPLOYEE OF BIHAR STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPEMTN CORPCPORATION LIMITED, SINHA LIBRARY ROAD , PATNA. ON DEPUTATION TO BIHAR STATE HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, SONE BHAWAN, BIRCHAND PATEL MARG, PATNA……. APPELLANTS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE BIHAR STATE HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LMITED THROUGH THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAVING HIS OFFICE AT SONE BHAWAN, 2ND FLOOR, BIHARCHAND PATEL MARG, PATNA. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, SONE BHAWAN, SECOND FLOOR, BIRCHAND PATEL MARG, PATNA. 4. THE MANAGER ( PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATION), BIHAR STATE HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, SONE BHAWAN, 2ND FLOOR, BIR CHAND PATEL MARG, PATNA. 5. THE ASSISTANT MANAGER ( ACCOUNTS ), BIHAR STATE HYDRO ELECTRIC CORPORATION LIMITED, SONE BHAWAN , 2ND FLOOR, BIRCHAND PATEL MARG, PATNA. 6. THE BIHAR STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED , THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SINHA LIBRARY ROAD, PATNA. 7. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, SINHA LIBRARY ROAD, PATNA. 8 .THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, SINHA LIBRARY ROAD, PATNA…………………………. RESPONDENTS ( L.P.A. 608 OF 2006 ) FOR THE APPELLANT ;- MR. CHITRANJAN SINHA, SR. ADVOCATE & 6 MR. RAM SHANKAR DAS,ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE MR. LALIT KISHORE,A.A.G. III, MR. ANSHUMAN AC TO AAG III. FOR BISCOMAUN ;- MR. RAJESH PD. CHOUDHARY,ADVOCATE ( L.P.A. 628,680 AND 795 OF 2006) FOR THE APPELLANTS :- MR. SHASHI ANUGRAH NARAYAN SR. ADVOCATE MR. Y.V. GIRI, SR. ADVOCATE MR. CHITRANJAN SINHA,SR.ADVOCATE MR. AJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE :- MR. LALIT KISHORE, A.A.G. III, MR. ANSHUMAN SINGH,A.C. TO AAG III FOR BISCOMAUN MR. RAJESH PD. CHOUDHARY,ADVOCATE FOR P.M.C. :- MR. SHEKHAR SINGH, ADVOCATE ( L.P.A. 720 OF 2006 ) FOR THE APPELLANTS :- DR. K.N. SINGH,SR. ADVOCATE MR. MIRTUNJAY KR. ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE :- MR. LALIT KISHORE, A.A.G. III, MR. ANSHUMAN SINGH,AC TO AAGIII FOR BISCOMAUN :- MR. RAJESH PD. CHOUDHARY, ADV. ( L.P.A.787 AND 788 OF 2006) FOR THE APPELLANTS : MR. PUSHKAR NARAYAN SAHI,ADVOCATE, MR. MIRTUNJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE. FOR THE STATE :- MR. LALIT KISHORE, A.A.G. III, MR. P.K. VERMA, A.A.G. XI MR. ANNSHUMAN SINGH,AC TO AAG III MR. NAND KUMAR SINGH,AC TO AAG XI ---------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.PRASAD Shiva Kirti Singh,J All these eight Letters Patent Appeals have been treated analogous to each other and have been heard together because of a common issue of law as well as facts as to whether the appellants were sent to their present employers 7 on simple deputation and therefore liable to be repatriated or whether their services had, in fact, been transferred in the name of deputation for the purpose of absorption in accordance with a policy decision. While two of the Letters Patent Appeals bearing nos.787 and 788 of 2006 arise out from a different judgment dated 13-7-2006, the remaining appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 26-7-2006. 2. Mr. Shashi Anugarah Narain, learned senior counsel for both the appellants of L.P.A. No. 795 of 2006 led the arguments in all the cases, mainly on the basis of facts available in the records of that appeal. For the sake of convenience, the facts will be referred to from the records of that appeal only unless it is deemed necessary to refer specifically to the facts from some other appeals. 3. As noticed earlier L.P.A. No. 795 of 2006 and five other L.P.As. seek to challenge a common judgment dated 26-7-2006 whereby the writ court dismissed four writ petitions bearing C.W.J.C. Nos.1139 and 1899 of 2001 and C.W.J.C.Nos. 7462 and 13598 of 2000, after rejecting the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners had been sent on deputation from BISCOMAUN because Biscomaun at that time was under an Administrator 8 and like several other public undertakings of Bihar was suffering from poor financial condition and inviability and as per recommendation of a High Level Committee constituted by the State of Bihar the deputation was for the purpose of being absorbed in different wings/ departments of the State of Bihar and equality of treatment also requires that petitioners be treated as permanently absorbed like similar deputationists from BISCOMAUN and several other public undertakings who have been permanently absorbed. The writ court accepted the stand of the State and the Patna Regional Development Authority (P.R.D.A.) that petitioners should be treated like ordinary deputationists whose deputation can be terminated at any time. The stand of the State Government was that it had never taken a decision to absorb the petitioners and similarly situated persons in different wings/ departments of the State and only as a temporary measure the petitioners had been sent on deputation. The learned single Judge also accepted the stand of the State that engineers who were continuing on deputation in P.R.D.A. had to be repatriated because of an order dated 8-2-2000 passed in a Public Interest Litigation bearing C.W.J.C.No. 2290 of 1990. 4. On behalf of appellants the judgment under 9 appeal have been challenged mainly on the ground that the learned single Judge has failed to distinguish several other judgments rendered in identical situations including a judgment by the same Judge taking a different view that such transfer of service, in view of policy decision at highest level of the State Government could not be treated as a case of simple deputation, rather it was a case of transfer of service for the purpose of absorption because the concerned Public undertakings, Corporations etc. had become financially unviable and it had become difficult for them either to take work from many categories of employees or to pay them their salary and emoluments. According to learned counsel for the appellants the writ court has taken an over simplistic and technical view in these cases by disregarding the fact that even according to State the petitioners were sent on deputations some time in 1990 as per the policy decision of the State Government, as recommended by High Level Committee constituted by the State of Bihar and that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Biscomaun it was clearly stated that Biscomaun is not in a position to pay salary to its employees. 5. Before coming to the detailed arguments 10 advanced by Mr. Shashi Anugrah Narain, learned Sr. Advocate, it will be useful to take note of certain basic relevant facts. The appellants in L.P.A. No. 795 of 2006 are degree holder engineers who were appointed in Biscomaun in 1982-83. Annexure-1 to the memorandum of appeal contains minutes of decisions taken on 12-2-1993 in presence of High Officials like Development Commissioner, Bihar, Administrator, Cooperative Bank, Patna, Administrator, Bisomaun, Patna and representative of Finance/Personnel Department. As per that decision, working of various units and department of Biscomaun were reviewed and relevant decisions were taken which included a decision to close the Engineering Department and to take steps for absorption of such engineers who have necessary qualifications for being absorbed in Government Department against vacant posts. Annexure-2 is a proposal contained in memo no. 3359 dated 16-12-1993 issued by the Co-operative Department which is the controlling department of BISCOMAUN containing proposal for consideration by a Committee of the Cabinet for approval of Economic policy and economic co-ordination. That proposal included a proposal to close the engineering department of BISCOMAUN and for absorption of qualified 11 engineers in Government department against vacant posts. The proposal shows that it had the approval of State Minister for Cooperatives. Although no formal policy decision was issued by the State of Bihar but in pursuance of decision noticed above, it is not in dispute that the engineering department of Bisomaun was closed and services of several graduate engineers as well as some diploma engineers of Bisomaun were transferred on deputation basis to different departments of the State Government like Science and Technology, Transport, Urban Development, Labour and Employment etc. Annexures 3 and 4 series to the connected writ petition (C.W.J.C.No. 1139 of 2001) show that services of appellant no.1, Kameshwar Prasad Singh were handed over to Urban Development Department for being posted under P.R.D.A. in January/February,1993. Some other engineers of Biscomaun had also been sent on deputation to Science and Technology Department, Transport Department, Cooperative Department. Copies of deputation orders of 1994 and of 1997 have also been annexed. Services of appellant no.2, Santosh Kumar Singh were handed over to Urban Development Department on deputation pursuant to their request through letter dated 14-2-1995 contained in 12 annexure-6 series. That letter simply asked for his services without mentioning that it was required on deputation. 6. In the connected writ petition specific pleadings were made that several other similarly situated engineers of Bisomaun were absorbed elsewhere and also in P.R.D.A. but the matter of absorption of the appellants remained pending. Since the writ petitioners had apprehension that on account of delay in passing formal orders of their absorption, the respondents may create a situation for their services being returned to Biscomaun where the engineering department was closed and they would not get service or salary for moved this court through writ petition. The prayer in the writ petition was (1) To absorb the services of the petitioners under the Urban Development Department and (2) to restrain the respondents concerned from returning their services to their parent organization. Judgment in the case of one Amarnath Singh who was sent on deputation to Transport Department was mentioned to show that order for his repatriation was quashed by judgment dated 12-9-1997 in C.W.J.C. No. 3513 of 1994 on the finding that repatriation, in the facts of the case would amount to termination of his service. That judgment ( annexure-13) was challenged by the 13 respondents State of Bihar but the L.P.A. before the Division Bench of this Court as well as S.L.P. (Civil) No. 312 of 1999 were dismissed. A similar judgment dated 9-12-99 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Ramashray Singh and the concerned department of Industry and Technology, directed the Government of Bihar to take a decision in the matter of absorption of Ramashray Singh and others within two months keeping in view the Government decision dated 24-27th May,1984 following which those petitioners were sent on deputation and also keeping in mind the judgment in the case of Amarnath Singh (Annexure-13) . 7. On the basis of aforesaid facts learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, Mr. Shashi Anugrah Narain made a pointed challenge to the four reasons indicated by learned single Judge for dismissing the writ petition. The first reason that the Government policy to send the eligible engineers of Biscomaun on deputation for absorption was not formally notified, was assailed on the ground that for a number of years such policy held the field, and was acted upon. The surplus employees of various Boards, Corporations under Government control were sent on deputation and absorbed. Simply because the policy communicated to all concerned 14 has not been formally notified, should not make any adverse impact upon the right of the appellants to receive similar benefits of absorption and retention of their services in the transferred departments as has been done in case of large number of other employees who were similarly situated. It was pointed out that Government cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own lapses in not notifying the policy although it was implemented over a long period under orders of the State Government itself. It was further submitted that employees are entitled to legitimate expectation that they would also get the same benefits as given to other similarly situated employees even if the policy has not been formally notified as a resolution of the State Government. Once a decision was actually taken by the Competent Authority and communicated to all Boards, Corporations under the State Government as well as to concerned department, according to learned senior counsel for the appellants, it would not matter at all that such policy was not formally notified. 8. We have no hesitation in accepting the aforesaid submission, both on the basis of requirements of equality, reasonableness and equity as well as on the well established principle of administrative law that decision by a public 15 authority when communicated to the concerned parties, becomes effective and cannot be treated as mere notings in the files. 9. The next reason adopted by the learned writ court is that the deputationists, in law, can have no right to oppose an order of repatriation as is being assailed on behalf of some of the appellants. To meet this reason,it has been submitted that once it is held that even in absence of a formal notification, the Government policy to transfer the services of persons like the petitioners for absorption is valid, then use of the term “deputation” while transferring the services of the appellants to Government departments cannot deprive them of the benefit of the government policy noticed above whose benefits had been given to many similarly situated persons. Secondly, it has been shown from judgments in the case of similarly situated deputationists that in the past this Court had treated the transfer of services of similar employees under government policy decision to be really not a deputation but a transfer for the purpose of absorption. In some of the judgments it was held that generally a deputationist has no right to continue in the loanee department and he can be sent back to his present department but if the earlier department or 16 organization is closed or has become so crippled financially as not to be in a position to continue the service and pay salary,there cannot exist any lien for the concerned employees over the earlier service/ post. In fact, prior to the two judgments under appeal, as the discussions would reveal, this Court had always taken the view that the transaction in question was not a simple deputation as is ordinarily understood in service jurisprudence rather, as a fact the term deputation was used only as a good and acceptable mechanism to transfer services of suitable employees to organizations and departments where vacant posts were available and where their services could be utilized and absorbed in the light of policy decision noticed and discussed earlier. 10 In our considered view the aforesaid submissions in respect of second reason adopted by the writ court also have merits and in the peculiar facts of the case the principle that deputationists have no right to continue on deputation could not have been invoked against the appellants. 11. Thirdly, it was submitted that the learned writ court has wrongly placed reliance upon a Division Bench Judgment in the case of State of Bihar Vrs. Gopal Prasad, 2003 (4) 17 PLJR 495. It was pointed out that in that case the deputation orders were found to be illegal because they had been issued after 16-11-1999 which was accepted as the cut off date and as per subsequent policy decision of the government, general deputation of employees other than government servants could not be made in government departments. It was pointed out that the concept of cut- off date and that earlier deputations had not been adversely affected by such judgment stands explained by another Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Md. Amanullah Vrs. State of Bihar, reported in 2004 (1) 145. Undisputedly the deputation of the appellants in these appeals is prior to 16-11-99 except of the appellants of L.P.A. No. 1110 of 2004. It may be mentioned here that nobody has appeared on behalf of the appellants in the aforesaid L.P.A. No. 1110/04 but so far as appellants in other appeals are concerned their deputations being prior to 16-11-99,it has rightly been submitted that the Division Bench judgment in the case of State of Bihar Vrs. Gopal Prasad (supra) could not have been used against such appellants. 12. The fourth and the last reasoning of the learned writ court that repatriation was required to be made in view of 18 order dated 8-2-2000 passed in Arun Mukherjee’s case ( a Public Interest Litigation) has also been