The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dispute regarding the permanent absorption of an employee must be resolved in accordance with the applicable rules and with the consent of both the borrowing and lending authorities. Inconsistent actions and lack of jurisdiction on the part of the authorities can lead to the nullity of the decisions made.

(May 31, 2002) 2002 (TLS)127111

2002-AD (Del)-6-470 :: 2002-ILRDLH-9-402

HARSH MUNJAL Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL, SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA

S. B. SINHA

( 1 ) THESE writ petitions arise out of a judgment and order dated 23. 08. 1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal ) in T. A. No. 1 of 1998 and O. A. No. 1825 of 1998.

BACKGROUND FACTS :~ 1. 1 The petitioner joined the services of the Government of gujarat as hockey Coach in the year 1997. He was promoted as hockey Coach, Group - A on 01. 09. 1986. The services of the petitioner were requisitioned by the Sports authority of India ( in short, the SAI ) before its amalgamation in the year 1984. The petitioner was deputed to the post of hockey Coach by the Government of Gujarat in the services of the SAI on the terms and conditions as contained in the letter dated 11. 12. 1986, the relevant portion of which is as follows :-

"3. The lien of Shri Harsh Munjal will continue on his present post of Hockey Coach till his deputation period and it may be terminated from the date of his absorption thereon on Shri Harsh Munjal giving option to continue on the post under the Sports authority of India " pursuant to or in furtherance thereof, the petitioner joined as hockey Coach in the pay scale of Rs. 700. 00 - Rs. 1,100. 00 on deputation on foreign service terms for a period of 2 years in the first instance on 13. 01. 1987, which was accepted by him. Thereafter, on or about 05. 02. 1987, the petitioner was offered appointment to the post of assistant director in the SAI in the scale of Rs. 700. 00 - Rs. 1,300. 00 on foreign service terms. 1. 2 On or about 31. 03. 1987, the Government of India issued an office Memorandum wherein it was provided that in case the Government employee on deputation in Autonomous bodies did not return to his parent Department during or after the sanctioned deputation period he would be deemed to have been permanently absorbed in the Autonomous body on the date of expiry of the deputation period. The said period of the petitioner s deputation ended on 12. 01. 1989 but no order had been passed either extending the period of deputation or reverting him. Despite the same he continued to work as Additional Director in the SAI. According to him, he would having regard to the said office- memorandum be deemed to have been absorbed w. e. f. 13. 01. 1989, which claim he put forth before 8ai by a letter dated 17. 04. 1989. 1. 3 SAI in terms of its letter dated 14. 06. 1989 contended that the policy decision of the Government of India has no application to the post of additional Director stating

"3. Deemed Absorption :- the Govt. of India orders dated 31. 03. 1987 quoted by him are inapplicable in his case as appointment to the post of Asst. Director has been exempted from the operation of these orders by Department of Personnel. " the petitioner was thereafter sought to be reverted to his permanent post. He filed a writ petition before this Court, which was marked as CWP No. 1814 of 1989 wherein an order of stay was passed. The said writ petition was subsequently transferred to the Central Administrative tribunal and, was registered as T. A. No. 1 of 1998. 1. 4 We may notice that SAI in the said proceedings also contended that the petitioner remained a deputationist at the time when the impugned order of repatriation was issued. No other plea was advanced by it. During pendency of the said writ petition, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in the year 1991. The said disciplinary proceedings were completed in the year 1994 and a copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner on 25. 04. 1994 whereagainst he submitted his representation. No action thereupon, however, was taken. 1. 5 In the meanwhile, an application for modification of the interim Order of Stay dated 22. 07. 1989 was filed by SAI on 27. 05. 1994 wherein it was contended :-

"the approval