IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.18614 of 2006 Date of decision: August 8, 2008 Radhey Shyam and others -----Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and others -----Respondents CWP No.17867 of 2007 Ram Sarup and others -----Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Addl.A.G.Haryana for the State. Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Sr. advocate with Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate for respondent Nos. 6 to 8. CWP No.18614 of 2006 Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petition No.18614 of 2006 and Civil Writ Petition No.17867 of 2007 as both the petitions raise a common issue. In the first petition, the challenge is to the promotion given to respondent Nos. 6 to 8 after their absorption in Government service, while the second petition is a cross petition seeking claim for promotion by repatriation or in the Government itself. 2. Ram Sarup, Antar Singh and Jagbir Singh (respondents 6 to 8 in the first petition) were employed as Beldars in Municipal Committee, Hissar but they were sent on deputation on 2.4.1993 to the Public Health Department of the State Government, where they worked for 13 years and were absorbed in service on 5.10.2006 w.e.f 2.4.1993. On the said date, they were to be placed at bottom of seniority list in each category of the department. Inspie of this, order dated 20.10.2006 was passed by Municipal Council, Hissar giving promotion to the said employees to the post of Clerk. 3. Grievance of the writ petitioners in the first petition is that the employees in question having been absorbed in the Government service ceased to be employees of the Municipal Council and could not be given promotion by the said Council. The 2 CWP No.18614 of 2006 defence of the said employees is that they had indicated their unwillingness to be absorbed and thus, their absorption itself was illegal, which they have challenged by filing the second writ petition. 4. In the second writ petition, contention raised is that the petitioners did not want to be absorbed in the Government service and, thus, absorption was without their consent and thus, void. The said petition has been contested on behalf of the State by submitting that the State was acting in accordance with the order of this Court dated 28.9.2004 in CWP No.20043 of 2003 (Rajinder Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others) wherein it was directed that employees who were on deputation be treated as employees of the State with effect from the date of transfer of work from Municipal Council to Public Health department. The concerned employees, though initially gave a letter that they did not want to be absorbed, moved another application dated 2.11.2006 that they were willing to be absorbed. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. It is undisputed that for 13 years, the concerned emplyees continued to work on deputation with the State Government without any objection. They were sent on deputation 3 CWP No.18614 of 2006 on account of work of Municipality having been transferred to State Government. After serving for 13 years and having also given their consent for absorption, they could not insist that they should be repatriated to the parent department. In State of Tamilnadu v. V.S. Balakrishnan 1994(4) SLR 489=1994 Supp 3 SCC 204 para11, it was held that consent for absorption could be inferred from the circumstances. In J.P. Saroha & Anr. v. Union of India and another 1997(4) SLR 464=1997(6) SCC 93 para 3, it was held that repatriation after a long period could be declined. 7. Contention of learned counsel for the concerned employees is that they agreed for absorption on an assurance that they will be given promotion and their having continued for 13 years, did not oblige them to agree for absorption, which affected their promotion prospects. 8. We are unable to accept the submission for the reasons already given. In view of admitted position that the employees worked for 13 years, without any objection on account of transfer of work, it cannot be held that absorption was against their consent. Denial of repatriation was justified. If they were validly absorbed, they could not be promoted by the Municipal council. 9. Accordingly, CWP No.18614 of 2006 is allowed and CWP No.17867 of 2007 is dismissed. It is, however, made clear 4 CWP No.18614 of 2006 that the concerned employees will be duly considered for promotion on their turn in view of their absorption w.e.f 2.4.1993. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge August 8 , 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) ‘gs’ Judge 5