JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)

[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]

CM APPL. 21230/2021

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 6733/2021 & CM APPL. 21231/2021

2. This is a writ petition directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short `the Tribunal') dated 30.03.2021.

2.1. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner had assailed the letter of repatriation dated 12.11.2020 (See: Annexure P-5).

2.2. To put it pithily, the petitioner had approached the Tribunal with the grievance that although respondent no. 1, i.e., the parent department had no objection to him being absorbed by the borrowing department, i.e., respondent no. 2, respondent no. 2 had issued the impugned letter of repatriation dated 12.11.2020.

3. The petitioner, in support of his plea also drew attention to the fact that other persons who had been sent on deputation to respondent no. 2 had not been repatriated by the said entity, i.e., respondent no. 2.

4. According to us, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal is correct.

4.1. In our view, once the borrowing department has taken a decision not to absorb and employ a person deployed on de