The main legal point established in the judgment is that the period of deputation can be counted as service in the parent organization for the computation of terminal benefits if the employee retains a lien in the parent organization during the deputation period.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J . - The present petition raises a short but important question; as to whether an employee, while holding his lien in the parent organization, can claim that the period when he was working on deputation in other organization, be counted as service in the parent organization, for the purpose of computation of his terminal benefits.

2. The petitioner, who joined the services of Delhi University/respondent No. 1 as an Assistant Registrar on 29.08.2001 was, under the provisions of Statute 28-A of the University General Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme, admitted to the general provident fund. As, the petitioner had, before joining the Delhi University, between 23.04.1985 and 28.08.2001, served in various Central Government departments and Autonomous Organizations in various capacities, his entire past services of 16 years 4 months was to be counted for the purpose of computation of his terminal benefits. Being a non-teaching staff, in terms of Rule 12 of the 'University Non- Teaching Employees (Terms & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013 ('the University Rules, 2013'), he was to reach superannuation at the age of 60 years.

3. The petitioner was thereafter promoted as a Deputy Registrar w.e.f., 05.02.2008 and on the said post, he was w.e.f. 21.07.2011, selected and appointed to the post of Director, National Book Trust (NBT) on deputation, for a period of three years on a year-to-year basis, based on the recommendations of a search-cum-selection committee by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development ('MHRD').

4. On 25.11.2014, Ambedkar University Delhi/respondent No. 3 issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Registrar, to be filled on a five years tenure basis. Being eligible, the petitioner, while serving as a Director with the NBT, on 18.12.2014 applied for the same through proper channel and sent an advance copy of the said application to the respondent No. 3. In the said application, the petitioner prayed that in the event of his selection, he be, as per the extant rules of the respondent No. 1, relieved from the services of respondent No. 1, either on Extra Ordinary Leave (EoL) or on deputation basis, so as to enable him to join the respondent No. 3 as a Registrar. In response, the petitioner was informed by the respondent No. 1 that only an application for a post through direct recruitment could be forwarded and, since the post of Registrar at respondent No. 3 University was on tenure/deputation basis, his request could not be acceded to.

5. In the meanwhile, on the basis of an advance copy of his application dated 18.12.2014, the petitioner was on 15.4.2015, called by the respondent No. 3 for an interview for the post of Registrar, which was scheduled to be held on 04.05.2015. Upon receiving this call letter, the petitioner, on 16.04.2015 requested the respondent No. 1 to issue a 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) to enable him to appear in the said interview and also prayed that if selected, he be relieved for joining the post of Registrar in respondent No. 3 by retaining his lien/EOL in respondent No. 1, for a period of one year.

6. The petitioner was issued the necessary NOC by respondent No. 1, based whereon, he appeared in the interview and was selected for the post of Registrar in respondent No. 3, on 13.05.2015.

7. On 18.5.2015, while still serving at NBT on deputation, the petitioner informed the respondent No. 1 about his selection to the post of Registrar in respondent No. 3, and therefore, offered his technical resignation from the respondent No. 1, with a view to join respondent No. 3 as a Registrar with one year lien/EOL, as had been requested by him earlier. The petitioner's request was accepted and he was asked to join back respondent No. 1 from NBT so that his technical resignation could be considered.

8. After his joining back the respondent No. 1 , the petitioner was, vide order dated 29.07.2015, upon the acceptance of his technical resign