WP(C) 1578/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved by the office order dated 19.2.2009 of the Additional Deputy Director, SIB, Ministry of Home Affairs, Dibrugarh repatr iating him to his parent department. 2. I have heard Mr N Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr K P aul, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The pleaded facts in short ,are that the petitioner, who was initially appointed as a Constable(GD) in the SSB Organization on 14.4.1999 , was deputed to the SIB, Government of India in terms of the order dated 18.6.2001 and posted under the Assistant Director, SIB, Dibrugarh. He accordingly joined as Security Assistant (G) under the said authority. After completion of five years with th e SIB on deputation, the petitioner being required along with other similarly s ituated persons , offered his option for absorption in the loanee organization. He also submitted a representation to the said effect. As inspite of the above, the impugned order was passed, he seeks redress. 4. The Respondent Nos 2 and 4 representing the Subsidiary Intelligenc e Bureau( the loanee organization) in their affidavit while disputing the petiti oner’s right as a deputationist to seek absorption, have contended that one of the necessary preconditions therefor being the concurrence of his parent depar tment, in absence thereof, his request therefor, cannot be accepted by any means . The answering respondent referring to a letter No.2/69/03/SSB/EB-III)IB)-3689 dated 28.7.2006 have pleaded that by the said letter the parent department of the petitioner’s has shown its disinclination for his absorption with the SIB an d therefore, the impugned order cannot be faulted with. 5. Mr Dhar has argued that having regard to the length of service o f the petitioner and his keenness to be absorbed with the SIB , the impugned ac tion of repatriating him to the parent department is per se unsustainable in l aw. He has further urged that as the letter dated 287.2006 of the parent depart ment of the petitioner as on date is stale , in absence of any subsisting admi nistrative exigency necessitating the petitioner’s repatriation, the impugned d ecision is liable to be interfered with. 6. Mr Paul, in course of the arguments, while abiding by the pleade d stand of the Respondent Nos 2 and 4 has produced a letter No.XII/FG/PWD-1578/0 9/L-711-13 dated 12.8.2009 of the Sub Area Organizer(Law), Frontier Hqr SSB, Gu wahati , Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India conveying the decision of the concerned authorities of the parent department of the petitioner to the effect that they have no objection to his absorption with the SIB. 7. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking note of the letter dated 12.8.2009, this Court is of the view that the only impediment in the way of the petitioner’s absorption with the SIB thus being withdrawn, th e impugned office order dated 19.2.2009 ought to be interfered with. Ordered ac cordingly. The concerned authority of the SIB would pursue with the parent dep artment of the petitioner the issue with regard to his absorption with the said organization and take appropriate steps to process his request for absorption with the SIB Organization. As the petitioner waits in expectation, the process should be completed within a period of Six(6) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 8. The petition stands allowed in the above terms. No costs.