ORDER :

Ruma Pal, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant is a statutory Corporation. The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant is obliged to permit Respondent 1 to continue in the appellant's service.

3. Respondent 1 was employed with the State Government in 1982 in the Planning Department. In 1982 Respondent 1 wrote to the appellant seeking appointment on deputation basis. The appellant agreed to appoint Respondent 1 on deputation. A letter was written by the appellant to the State Planning Institute (the employer of Respondent 1), to issue necessary orders. On 8-6-1984 the State Government issued an order to the effect that if Respondent 1 was desirous of working with the Corporation then he should be permitted to serve on deputation thereafter being relieved of his charge with his parent department. It was also made clear that the lien of Respondent 1 in his parent department would continue while he would be on deputation with the appellant Corporation. Respondent 1 thereafter joined the appellant's services on 13-6-1984.

4. It appears that soon after this in 1987 in exercise of the right conferred by the Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Government Servants in Public Undertakings Rule