Absorption on deputation is not a legal right and requires mutual consent from both the parent and borrowing departments.

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Amit Bansal, J. The present petition has been filed on behalf of four petitioners who were appointed as Constables (General Duty (GD)) with the respondents Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on 2nd August, 1997, 28th April, 1995, 16th March, 2001 and 27th May, 2002 respectively.

2. In the years 2012 and 2013, the petitioners were transferred on deputation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which deputation, though initially for a period of three years, was extended from time to time.

3. In the present writ petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the repatriation order dated 13th July, 2021 and the relieving orders dated 14th July, 2021 issued by CBI. The petitioners further seek mandamus directing the respondents no.1 & 3 to issue `No Objection Certificates' (NOC) to them for permanent absorption in their respective places of posting with CBI.

4. The counsel for the petitioners has contended that (i) CBI has been willing to absorb the petitioners since the year 2018. In this regard, reference is made to Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-4 of the paper book, whereby deputationist Constables, including the petitioners, were being considered for absorption in CBI; (ii) in terms of the uniform policy for deputation titled "Policy Guidelines for Deputation of Combatised CAPFs & AR Personnel in Other Organisations" (Guidelines) dated 22nd November, 2016 issued by the respondent no.1, Ministry of Home Affairs, the petitioners fulfill the requirement/eligibility criteria for absorption as provided in paragraph 17 of the said guidelines; and (iii) similarly placed personnel have been granted NOC for the purpose of permanent absorption.

5. Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, counsel appearing on advance notice for CBI submits that as on date, CBI does not wish to absorb the petitioners and the reliance placed by the petitioners on Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-4 of the paper book is unsound since these are old communications, of the year 2018 and 2019.

6. In view of the clear and categorical statement made on behalf of the counsel for CBI, no direction can be issued in respect of absorption of the petitioners with CBI.

7. It is a settled principle of law that absorption cannot be claimed as a matter of right. For an absorption to be carried out, there has to be consent of the parent department as well as the department in which the absorption is sought. In this regard, reference may be made to Kunal Nanda Vs. Union of India, (2000) 5 SCC 362 wherein the Supreme Court has succinctly explained the legal position concerning absorption:

"6..It is well settled that unless the claim of the deputationist for permanent absorption in the department where he works on deputation is based upon any statutory Rule, Regulation or Order having the force of law, a deputationist cannot assert and succeed in any such claim for absorption. The basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the person concerned can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in his substantive position therein at the instance of either of the departments and there is no vested right in such a person to continue for long on deputation or get absorbed in the department to which he had gone on deputation."

8. The dicta in Kunal Nanda (Supra) has been reiterated in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. V. Ramakrishnan, (2005) 8 SCC 394 and decisions of Division Benches of this Court in Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12615 and Chandra Mohan Singh Bhandari Vs. Union of India and Others, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10002.

9. In Pawan Kumar (Supra) a Division Bench of this Court rejected the relief of absorption sought by th