JUDGMENT

Raju, J.-Special leave granted.

2. The appeallant, who lost before the Tribunal as well as the High Court, has come up before this Court challenging the judgment of the High Court declining to interfere with the order dated 16.4.1999 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A. No. 241 of 1999 which, in turn, repelled a challenge to the repatriation of the appellant to his parent department. The appellant, a member of CRPF and serving as an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the said parent department w.e.f. 1.1.87, joined the service of CBI on deputation in the same capacity as ASI on 1.8.91. He continued to work as/ASI on the deputation terms for the initial period, which came to be extended from time to time with the mutual consent of the lending and borrowing department. In the year 1994, no doubt, the borrowing department expressed an inclination for permanent absorption in the CBI and sought for the concurrence of the CRPF to which, it appears, the lending department also conveyed its clearance.

3. It may be noticed at this stage that while on such deputation in the CBI, the appellant was also appointed as Sub-Inspector on 1.6.95 and in his parent