K. Vinod Chandran, CJ. – The obstinate recalcitrance of the State Government, very evident from the above appeal filed, is to deny the first respondent pension to live a peaceful retired life, as a government employee, despite having succeeded in the various litigations before this Court. The learned Single Judge directed that the writ petitioner, the first respondent herein, should be treated to have been absorbed on and from the date of deputation and should be granted the pensionary benefits in terms of the pension rules which were operational at the relevant time. The main plank of the State in challenging the impugned judgment is the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in an appeal from the order in L.P.A. No. 608 of 2006 and connected matters preferred by the State of Jharkhand, which judgment (in L.P.A) was consistently relied on by various Benches of this Court to allow the claim of the respondent and other similarly situated deputationists.

2. We need to look at the various judgments as available from the records before we look at the facts of the case. The admitted facts are that many of the public sector undertakings (PSUs) floated by the State failed to achieve the desired objects and purposes and in course of time became dysfunctional, having suffered huge losses, making their continuation a burden on the exchequer. Faced with the prospect of closing down, the State at first resorted to pruning of manpower and permitted deputations to be carried out so that the personnel of these PSUs/Corporations were accommodated in government departments. A selection procedure was resorted to and many of the excess personnel were accommodated in the various departments, wherein, based on their satisfactory performance the deputations were extended. Some of them were regularly absorbed in the Government but others were denied such absorption.

3. Such regularization on mere whim and caprice also led to repatriations to the parent department wherein the deputationists would be denied of pension; especially when cancellation of deputation resulting in the repatriations was made just prior to retirement and to dysfunctional entities. Solitary cases taken up by those employees whose deputations were cancelled were allowed by this Court. But a batch of such cases were dismissed by the learned Single Judge which led to appeals being filed, eight of which were disposed of by judgment dated 19.04.2010 in LPA No. 608 of 2006 and connected matters (Avinash Vatsyayan vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.).

4. In L.P.A 608 of 2006 and connected cases, the appellants who were also the writ-petitioners and employees of a Cooperative Society (the BISCOMAUN) in which at the relevant time, there was an Administrator appointed. The appellants were sent on deputation to Government departments because of the poor financial condition of the Society, its very viability having been threatened by its dismal performance. The learned Single Judge found that the deputation of petitioners to the Government departments, which saved their employment, could only be treated as any other deputation, liable for repatriation to the parent Organization at any time. The State Government’s stand that there was never a decision taken to absorb those who were on deputation, which itself was a temporary measure, was accepted by the Writ Court.

5. The Division Bench of this Court found that though there was no formal notification of the government policy to transfer the services of the petitioners to the government departments, the mere term employed, of deputation cannot deprive them of the benefit of the policy which has been extended to many similarly situated persons.

6. There were also judgments of this Court, though in solitary instances, wherein similar deputation of employees under the government policy decision, culminated in their absorption enabling every benefit due to a government employee on superannuation; reckoning the period spent on such deputation as government s