Letters Patent Appeal No.324 OF 2001 Against the judgment and order dated 13th October 1998 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 3267 of 1990 THE BIHAR STATE HYDRO ELECTRIC-------------------Appellant. Versus YOGESH KUMAR LABH------------------------------------Respondents. - - - - - For the appellant : Mr. Shyama Prasad Mukherji, Sr. Advocate. M/s. Shanti Pratap,Adv. Mr.O.P.Agrawal,Adv. For the Respondents: M/s. Sujeet Kumar Sinha Indu Bhushan Pandey,Advs. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA MOHAN PRASAD Barin Ghosh & C.M.Prasad,JJ There is no dispute that the writ-petitioner respondent was not an employee of the appellant, he was a deputanist. His parent Department was Small Industries Service Institute, a Central Government establishment. There is also no dispute that it was the appellant who requested the writ-petitioner to give consent for absorption in the appellant in the post of Assistant Manager(Accounts) in public interest. The writ-petitioner respondent gave his consent to the proposal, subject to counting his service as an employee of the Central Government for the purpose of settlement of his pension. The appellant approached the Central Government for its consent for absorption of the - 2 - writ-petitioner in the appellant in the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts) in public interest. The Central Government on the other hand asked the appellant to return the writ-petitioner to his parent Organization. In the mean time, the Board of Directors of the appellant approved the proposal for absorption of the writ-petitioner in the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts). The deputation of the writ- petitioner expired on 7th September 1987. Despite such expiry, the writ-petitioner was not returned to his parent Organization. In the mean time on 14th August 1987, once again the appellant approached the Central Government to approve permanent absorption of the writ-petitioner in the appellant. Ultimately on 19th July 1988 the Central Government approved absorption of the writ-petitioner in the appellant in public interest but in the post of Accountant. On 21st July 1989, the writ-petitioner was informed about his absorption in the post of Accountant. This resulted in filing of the writ petition. The same has been allowed by the judgment and order under appeal and, hence, the present appeal. It was the appellant who offered the writ-petitioner - 3 - the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts) upon his absorption in the appellant which offer was accepted. The appellant at no point of time offered the post of Accountant to the writ-petitioner, upon his absorption in the appellant. In the result, merely on the basis of approval of the Central Government for absorption of the writ- petitioner as Accountant in the appellant in public interest, the appellant could not absorb the writ petitioner in the post of Accountant. An employment is a contract and remains a contract all throughout. Unless the employee agrees, he cannot be absorbed in the post where he has been deputed. Neither the original employer, nor the subsequent employer can compel an employee to work in a post in which the employee concern did not agree to work. The appellant having had offered the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts) to the writ-petitioner and the same having been accepted by the writ-petitioner, there was no just reason for the appellant not to appoint the writ petitioner upon his absorption in the appellant in the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts). The same having been - 4 - declared by the judgment and order under appeal, there is no scope of interference. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Patna High Court, Dd. 8th Sept.2008 N.A.F.R. / Jay/ (Barin Ghosh,J) (C.M.Prasad,J)