IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 5924/2008 Decided on:21.10.2009 Rajesh Kumar Solanki. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, A.C.J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the petitioner : Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. The petitioner was appointed as a Scientific Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 7220-11660 on deputation basis for a period of one year vide order dated 2.3.2000. He has been repatriated vide office order dated 1.3.2007. Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate has argued that the petitioner stood absorbed in respondent No.3 organization and the office order dated 1.3.2007 is illegal. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was only sent on deputation and the employer has absolute right to recall him. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. The petitioner was sent, as noticed above, on deputation on 2.3.2000. The maximum period prescribed for deputation is five years. It is in these circumstances that office order dated 1.3.2007 has been issued. The petitioner has failed to place any contemporaneous material on record to even remotely suggest that the petitioner was ever absorbed in respondent No.3 organization. The Education Department is the parent Department of the petitioner. There is no merit in the submission of Mr. P.P. Chauhan that the petitioner will be deemed to have been absorbed. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice. (Rajiv Sharma), 21.10. 2009 Judge. *Awasthi*