Writ Appeal No.187/2010 17.11.2011 Shri P.N.Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri P.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard. This intra-court appeal arises from the order of the learned Single Judge dated 9.2.2010 passed in W.P.No.14144/2005 by which writ petition preferred by the appellant has been allowed. Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition, briefly stated, are that the respondent was an employee of the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur (JNKV for short). He was sent on deputation as National Fellow to the Indian Council for Agricultural Research, New Delhi (ICAR for short). During the period of deputation with the ICAR the respondent was getting a higher pay. When the respondent was repatriated to his parent employer JNKV, his higher pay was protected. However, the respondent further claimed increments on the ground that while working for ICAR he will be deemed to have been in normal employment of the JNKV. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order has upheld the respondent’s contention relying upon Fundamental Rules and the agreement or memorandum of understanding between the two employers and the respondent. Having examined all these papers we are of the opinion that the employment of the writ petitioner with the ICAR, which is a body totally independent of the parent employer i.e. JNKV, was merely an employment on deputation and the net effect of all these rules and M.O.U. is that the writ petitioner only continued to retain his lien with the parent employer. When a person is working for and being paid salary by a wholly independent employer, he cannot be deemed to be in normal service of the parent employer for whom he is neither working nor being paid by such parent employer. The remaining arguments made on behalf of the respondent are merely technical. These aspects do not appear to have been taken into account by the learned Single Judge. 1 Writ Appeal No.187/2010 Accordingly, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge to be considered afresh. (Sushil Harkauli) (Alok Aradhe) Acting Chief Justice Judge HS/AK 2