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 des