ORDER

1. LEAVE GRANTED.

2. THE APPELLANT WAS A SENIOR INSPECTOR IN RAILWAY PROTECTION SPECIAL FORCE (RPSF). HE HAD WORKED ON DEPUTATION WITH NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "THE AUTHORITY") FROM 4-6-1992 TO 5-1-1993. THE CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE AUTHORITY BY COMMUNICATION DATED 26-2-1993 ADDRESSED TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF RPSF STATED THAT THE SERVICES OF THE APPELLANT ON DEPUTATION DURING THE AFORESAID PERIOD WERE FOUND TO BE EXCEPTIONALLY GOOD. IT WAS ALSO STATED IN THE SAID COMMUNICATION THAT THE ASSOCIATION OF THE APPELLANT WITH EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE OF THE AUTHORITY FOR OVER FOUR YEARS DEALING WITH GENERAL ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL MATTERS, LAW AND ORDER, SECURITY, EXCISE AND CUSTOM AND OTHER RELATED ISSUES LED TO HIS DEVELOPMENT AS A WELL BALANCED OFFICER AND THAT HE HELD CHARGE OF SECURITY OFFICER, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND ESTATE MANAGER IN THE SAID EXPORT ZONE. THE AUTHORITY, UNDER THE AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCES, PROPOSED RPSF THE PERMANENT ABSORPTION OF THE APPELLANT IN THE AUTHORITY EXPRESSING ITS WILLINGNESS TO PROTECT HIS PAY AND OTHER PERKS IN THE PARENT DEPARTMENT. IN TERMS OF LETTER DATED 18-3-1993, THE APPELLANT COMMUNICATED HIS WILLINGNESS TO BE PERMANENTLY ABSORBED IN THE AUTHORITY. IN THE SAID COMMUNICATION ADDRESSED TO HIS PARENT DEPARTMENT IT WAS STATED THAT IF PERMANENTLY ABSORBED IN THE AUTHORITY, THE APPELLANT WILL SEVER HIS LIEN FROM THE RAILWAYS AND SUBMIT RESIGNATION. THE AUTHORITY BY LETTER DATED 13TH APRIL INFORMED THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, RPSF, THAT THE PERMANENT ABSORPTION OF THE APPELLANT IN THE AUTHORITY HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AND REQUESTED RPSF TO RELIEVE HIM AT THE EARLIEST SO THAT HE MAY JOIN THE AUTHORITY.

3. WITH REFERENCE TO RAILWAY BOARDS LETTER, CONSIDERING THE RESIGNATION A WHICH THE APPELLANT HAD TENDERED FROM RAILWAY SERVICE ON 28-4-1993, THE AUTHORITY WAS INFORMED BY THE RAILWAYS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN RELIEVED ON 28TH APRIL SO AS TO REPORT IN THE AUTHORITYS OFFICE FOR PERMANENT ABSORPTION. THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 7TH MAY ISSUED BY THE AUTHORITY RECORDS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS JOINED THE AUTHORITY WITH EFFECT FROM 28-4-1993. THE PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT OF THE AUTHORITY ALSO ISSUED AN ORDER DATED 7-1-1994 FIXING THE PAY OF THE APPELLANT CONSEQUENT UPON HIS PERMANENT ABSORPTION WITH EFFECT FROM 28-4-1993.

4. AFTER NEARLY EIGHT YEARS, BY OFFICE ORDER DATED 6-6-2002, THE AUTHORITY TOOK A UNILATERAL DECISION THAT THE ORDER DATED 7-1-1994 REGARDING PERMANENT ABSORPTION OF THE APPELLANT IS INEFFECTIVE DUE TO NON-APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF THE AUTHORITY. THE SAID ORDER SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN PASSED ON ACCOUNT OF LETTER DATED 5-6-2002 HAVING BEEN RECEIVED BY THE AUTHORITY FROM THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF THE U.P. GOVERNMENT. BESIDES, THE ABSENCE OF BOARD APPROVAL, THE OTHER REASON STATED IN THE ORDER DATED 6-6-2002 IS THAT THE APPROVAL OF THE U.P. GOVERNMENT PRIOR TO ABSORPTION OF THE APPELLANT HAD NOT BEEN SOUGHT AS PER THE ABSORPTION RULES, 1984. FURTHER THE APPELLANT WAS D RELIEVED FROM THE AUTHORITY AND DIRECTED TO REPORT BACK TO THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, RPSF, RAILWAY BOARD.

5. THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 6-6-2002 WAS CHALLENGED BY THE APPELLANT IN A WRIT PETITION FILED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD. THE WRIT PETITION WAS PARTLY ALLOWED. AS THE ORDER DATED 6-6-2002 HAD ADMITTEDLY BEEN PASSED WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT WHO HAD BEEN PERMANENTLY ABSORBED, THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE PERMANENT ABSORPTION CANNOT BE CANCELLED WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE APPELLANT. THE HIGH COURT IN THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER UNDER APPEAL, WHILE QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 6-6-2002, OBSERVED THAT IT WOULD BE OPEN TO THE AUTHORITY TO PASS FRESH ORDER AFTER HEARING THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT IS AGGRIEVED BY THAT PART OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER WHICH DIRECTS AND PERMITS THE AUTHORITY TO PASS A FRESH ORDER RECALLING THE PERMANENT ABSORPTION. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT, THE DIRECTION AND PERMISSION