WP(C) 3923/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B K SHARMA Heard Mr. A C Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resources Department, Assam. The petitioner serving as Lower Division Assistant (in short LDA) in the department of Water Resources is aggrieved by fixation of his seniority below t he respondent Nos.4, 5, 6, 7 & 8. The petitioner was appointed as LDA in the the n Flood Control Department at North Lakhimpur on 06.09.1977. He was posted in Su bansiri Investigation Circle, North Lakhimpur. The petitioner alongwith others w as sent on deputation to the Brahmaputra Board, Government of India, Ministry of Water Resources w.e.f. 01.04.1982 vide Annexure-1 Notification dated 28.03.1987 . By the said notification all the aforesaid respondents were also sent on deput ation. There is no dispute that taking into account the date of joining in the W ater Resources Department as LDA the petitioner is senior to the said respondent s as will be evident from the Annexure-6(A) gradation list dated 07.07.2005. Whi le the date of joining of the petitioner is 06.09.1977 the dates of joining of t he private respondents are 27.12.1978, 30.11.1979, 28.02.1981, 21.05.1981 and 22 .05.1981. The petitioner alongwith the said private respondents was repatriated to the parent Department by different orders passed in the year 1988/1989. In this connection, the petitioner has annexed the orders dated 03.06.1988, 05.10.1988, 31.10.1988, 18.02.1989 and 18.02.1989 (Annexure 2 to 5) respectively. In the Annexure-6A gradation list dated 07.07.2005 while the private res pondents have been placed at Sl No.4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 taking into account their re spective dates of joining in the service but the petitioner has been placed at S l No.9 taking into account the date of joining the particular Division (Lakhimpu r Division) after his repatriation. In absence of any counter-affidavit filed by the respondents it is not d iscernable as to why such course of action has been adopted which, on the face o f it discriminatory. Even otherwise also, the petitioner cannot be deprived of h is seniority from the initial date of appointment merely because he was sent on deputation to some other organisation. It will be pertinent to mention here that in the order of deputation it was clearly spelt out that the incumbents would h ave continued to hold the same post in the parent Department but for their deput ation to the Brahmaputra Board. When the private respondents have been assigned seniority from the initi al date of appointment irrespective of their deputation to Bramhaputra Board, I see no reason as to why the petitioner sould be deprived of the same treatment. Deputation does not mean severity of any relationship with the parent Department . The petitioner alongwith others was repatriated to the parent Department in du e course, which necessarily means that his seniority will have to be counted fro m the initial date of appointment and not from the date of joining after repatri ation. If, the petitioner was senior to the private respondents as per date of j oining the parent Department, the intervening deputation period cannot curtail h is seniority. However, in the impugned gradation list (Annexure-6A), as stated above, while the private respondents have been placed at Sl No.4 to 8, the petit ioner has been placed at Sl. No.9 but infact, he ought to have been placed above the incumbents at Sl. No.4. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed interfering with the Annexure-6A gradation list dated 07.07.2005, so far as the same shows the petit ioner or places the petitioner at Sl. No.9 below the private respondents, it is hereby directed that the petitioner shall rank senior to the private respondents and accordingly, his seniority position should be appropriately placed above th e said respondents. Writ petition is allowed without, however, any order as to coast.