Employees on deputation do not have an enforceable right for absorption in the borrowing department, and the rescinding of the Rules of 1991 means that the petitioners have no legal enforceable right for absorption in other Government departments.

This writ petition has been filed by Sri Suresh Chandra and Sri Prem Chandra Verma petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 who were appointed as Clerk and muster roll clerk respectively in the U. P. State Cement Corporation Ltd. , Churk, Sonbhadra (for short corporation ). The petitioners have sought the following reliefs in the petition:

(i) for quashing the order dated 18-2-2005 passed by the Director, State Urban Development Agency, U. P. , Lucknow repatriating the petitioners to the Corporation on account of completion of five years period of deputation in the State Urban Development Agency;

(ii) for a direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents not to interfere in the working of the petitioners as Junior Clerk/typist at District Urban Development Agency and to make regular payment of monthly salary;

(iii) writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to treat the petitioners as absorbed on the post of Junior Clerk/typist or to absorb the petitioners in alternative employment in Government service.

2. An advertisement dated 14-4-1999 was issued by the Director, State Urban Development Agency, U. P. , Lucknow (for short suda) inviting applications for appointment on deputation. The petitioners applied and were selected. They were consequently relieved from the Corporation and joined SUDA on deputation.

3. The financial condition of the Corporation was not healthy and it deteriorated to the extent that this Court by order dated 8-12-1999 directed winding up of the Corporation and services of all the employees stood terminated on the winding up. The Official Liquidator assumed charge of the Corporation on 31-7-2001.

4. It may be mentioned here that the State of U. P. had framed rules for absorption of retrenched employees in Government establishments known as Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government or Public Corporations in Government Service Rules, 1991 (in brief the Rules of 1991 ). The aforesaid Rules of 1991 were rescinded by Government vide order dated 8-4-2002, which has been appended as Annexure 15 to the writ petition.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the main prayer in the writ petition is the third prayer, which is based upon the fact that the petitioners were employees of the Corporation which has been wound up under a winding up order passed by this Court. As a consequence thereof the services of all the employees of U. P. State Cement Corporation, including the petitioners stood terminated on its closure. The Counsel further submits that the retrenched employees of the Corporation are entitled to absorption in alternate employment in any other Government establishment in the State under the Rules of 1991; and that each of the petitioners fulfils the conditions stipulated under the Rules of 1991 but have not been absorbed in any Government establishment under the respondents. It is also submitted that this Court with regard to other retrenched employees of the Corporation has issued

directions for their absorption and some of such retrenched employees have already been absorbed. In support of the contentions, the petitioners Counsel relied upon the judgment in Bageshwari Prasad Srivastava v. State of U. P. & Ors. , 1999 (3) AWC 1456 (All.), which has been affirmed by a Division Bench vide judgment dated 19-11-2001 in Special Appeal No. 540 of 1999 as well as Honble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 18-3-2002 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 5397 of 2002.

6. The Counsel for the petitioners then contends that the mere fact that the Rules of 1991 have been rescinded by notification dated 8-4-2003 does not have the effect of doing away with the entitlement of a person retrenched prior to such decisions in whose favour a right for absorption stands accrued under the aforesaid Rules. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon a decision in Amar Nath & Ors. v. State of U. P. & Ors. , 2004 (2) AWC 1698.

7. It is vehemently urged tha