IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 1650 of 2008 and CWP (T) No. 1985/2008 Decided on : December 16, 2008 CWP No. 1650/2008 Union of India and another …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. CWP (T) No. 1985/2008 Brinder Singh Chauhan …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Central Government Counsel in CWP No. 1650/08 and Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate, in CWP (T) No. 1985/08. For the Respondent : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in both the writ petitions Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 3 in CWP No.1650/2008. Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Central Government counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in CWP(T) No. 1985/2008 Per Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) This writ petition has been filed for setting aside interim orders dated 13.8.1997 and 13.11.1997, passed in Original Application No. 465/1997, by the H.P. State Administrative Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Tribunal, which has since been abolished. Now, because the Tribunal does not exist, prayer has been made during the course of hearing of the present writ petition, that the Original Application itself may also be disposed of. Record of the Original Application is available with us and it has even been listed for hearing today. So by this order, we will be disposing of not only the Writ petition, i.e., CWP No. 1650/2008, seeking review of the aforesaid two orders of the State Administrative Tribunal but also the Original Application. We may notice the relevant facts. Shri Brinder Singh Chauhan respondent No. 3 in the Writ Petition was working as Junior Assistant, probably in Accounts Branch, in Public Works Department in the year 1992, when he was taken on deputation by the Writ petitioners and appointed as Divisional Accountant. The initial period of deputation was one year. It was extended every year for a continuous period of four years. His deputation period was extended last, vide order Annexure A-4 up to March 1996 or until regular appointee joined in his place, whichever was earlier. In March 1997, when last extended period of deputation was going to complete, Brinder Singh Chauhan filed Original Application before the Tribunal claiming that he had the right to be absorbed as Divisional Accountant in the Office of respondent No. 2 on the basis of the Rules pertaining to the appointment of Divisional Accountants in his Office. He submitted the extract of relevant Rules along with the application. The extract pertains to the rules, which were in vogue prior to 1998. We may notice that in the year 1988, Rules were changed and under the - 3 - new Rules, there is no provision for absorption of deputationists against the posts of Divisional Accountant and the recruitment is to be made only on the basis of competitive examination. Probably Brinder Singh Chauhan was unaware, when he filed the Original Application that the Rules stood changed in the year 1988. Brinder Singh Chauhan also made a prayer for interim relief. He prayed that he be not reverted to his parent Department pending disposal of the Original Application. Tribunal allowed the interim prayer, vide impugned orders. Petitioners moved the Tribunal for vacation of interim order by making Miscellaneous Application No. 1120/2006. That application was allowed and the stay was vacated. Brinder Singh Chauhan challenged that order of the Tribunal vacating the stay by filing Writ Petition in this Court, being CWP No. 503/2006. This court disposed of the Writ Petition vide order dated 21.12.2008, directing the Tribunal to decide the aforesaid Miscellaneous Application No. 1120/2006, afresh. In the meanwhile Tribunal was abolished. So petitioners filed the present Writ Petition seeking Judicial Review of orders dated 13.8.1997 and 13.11.1997 by which interim orders directing the respondents not to revert Brinder Singh Chauhan, was passed. Admittedly, Brinder Singh Chauhan was taken on deputation by the petitioners in the year 1992 when new Rules of 1988 had come into force. There is no provision in the new Rules for absorption of officials taken on deputation against the post of Divisional Accountant. Legal position is well settled. A deputationist does not have a right to be absorbed, even if there be - 4 - any provision in the Rules for his absorption. It is for the borrowing Department to absorb the deputationist or to revert him to his parent Department, on completion of deputation period and even before that also. In fact the deputation is a tripartite agreement among the parent Department, the borrowing Department and the employee concerned. If any of the three parties to the agreement is not in favour of continuation of deputation or absorption of the deputationist, the absorption cannot take place nor can the deputationist remain on deputation, once any of the parties to the agreement desires that he should revert to his parent Department. In view of the above stated position, we see no merit in the Original Application which has been registered as CWP(T) No. 1985/2008 in the Registry of this Court. The same is therefore, dismissed. Consequently, interim orders dated 13.8.1997 and 13.11.1997 automatically stand vacated and therefore, the writ petition also becomes infructuous. Before parting, we may notice that an application, being CMP No. 3961/2008 for amendment of Original Application has been moved by Brinder Singh Chauhan. This application was moved on 4.12.2008, that is to say, more than a decade after the filing of the Original Application. By way of amendment, he wants to incorporate the additional plea that when new Rules came into force in the year 1988, there were certain vacancies of Divisional Accountants available with the petitioners and those vacancies, were required to be filled under the repealed rules. We dismiss this application, firstly on account of its being belated and secondly the plea sought to be introduced will not come to the rescue of the - 5 - Original Application, because as already noticed, a deputationist does not have the right to be absorbed. ( R.B. Misra ), J December 16,2008 (CM) ( Surjit Singh ), J