The court reaffirmed that employees on extended deputation due to closure of parent organizations may be entitled to retirement benefits and regularization, under principles of equal treatment in employment.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By way of present writ application the petitioner has prayed for direction upon the respondents to ensure and make payment of all retiral dues which has not been paid to the petitioner after his superannuation from service on 31.01.2018 as Peon under Minor Irrigation Division, Medininagar under the heads of (A) Gratuity, (B) Fixation of Pension, (C) Packing Allowance, (D) Utilized leave for 300 days, (E) Salary for the period from 1995 to 2000 along with the interest accumulated thereof.

3. After perusing the respective affidavits, it appears that the liability of BHALCO has already been paid to the petitioner, however, the liability of State of Jharkhand has not been satisfied till date.

4. Learned counsel for the respective parties including the State of Jharkhand fairly submits that this case is squarely covered by the decision rendered in W.P.(S). No. 1935 of 2014 (Rajeshwar Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.), however, learned State Counsel submits that though the case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid judgment, however, the State has challenged the decision rendered by this Court in the above referred case i.e. W.P.(S). No. 1935 of 2014 and the same is still pending.

5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the order passed in W.P.(S). No. 1935 of 2014 (Rajeshwar Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and looking to the facts of this case, it appears that this case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment.

6. For brevity the relevant paragraphs of the judgment rendered in W.P.(S). No. 1935 of 2014 (Rajeshwar Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) is extracted herein below:

“10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits and the averments made therein it is an admitted case that the petitioner was earlier appointed as Store Keeper in BHALCO and worked till 10.01.2000. Subsequently, on 11.01.2000 he was sent on deputation to the sanctioned post of Correspondence Clerk in Minor Irrigation Department, Ranchi for three years. However, his services were extended and finally he retired from Minor Irrigation Department in the year 2013.

It also appears that pursuant to the Resolution No. 6 660 dated 28.02.2009, whereby the Finance Department revised the pay in terms of 6th pay revision commission; the benefits of such 6th pay revision was also extended to this petitioner vide office order No. 279 dated 20.03.2009 w.e.f. 01.01.2006.

It is only when the petitioner retired and made representation for payment of his retiral benefits, the benefit of 6th pay revision commission which was earlier given to the petitioner vide order No. 279 dated 20.03.2009; was withdrawn vide order dated 26.10.2013.

11. Thus, the first issue that requires determination in the present case is whether the case of the petitioner can be treated as transfer by deputation or appointment by deputation ?

In the instant case since the parent department i.e. BHALCO was at the stage of winding up and was not in position to retain its employees; as such as per the policy decision of the Government every employee were sent on deputation to other government departments and the petitioner was also sent on deputation to Minor Irrigation Monitoring and Valuation Division, Ranchi on the sanctioned post of correspondence clerk.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel Vs. Union of India & Another, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 757 has held that ordinarily transfers on 7 deputations are made as against equivalent post from one cadre to another, however in cases where th