The temporary nature of SUDA, the maximum period of deputation, and the authority of the State Government in directing repatriation were central legal principles established in the judgment.

This is a bunch of seventy seven writ petitions. The binding thread running through all these writ petitions, is the subject matter of repatriation of the petitioners from the borrowing department/Agency. All the petitioners are at present working in the State Urban Development Agency (hereinafter called as 'SUDA'). Orders have been passed by SUDA directing the petitioners to return to their parent department. In one form or the other, all the petitioners have challenged the orders of their repatriation from SUDA. Before venturing into the merits of the case and the claim of the petitioners, it will be necessary to know what SUDA actually stands for.

2. It has been informed that SUDA is an agency/autonomous body, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960. It has temporary establishment in the State till the scheme lasts. SUDA is being run with the temporary grant, sanction of which are given on year to year basis from the Government of U.P. The administrative expenditure is meted out from the grant by the Government of India/State Government for the schemes related to the upliftment of the weaker section of urban areas. SUDA has no permanent establishment, it is an autonomous body and the powers vest in the governing body of the Society, and dependent upon the financial sanction by the State, Government. Temporary staff on deputation basis or on contract basis, are being deputed in SUDA.

3. As has been indicated above, all the petitioners have challenged their repatriation from SUDA to their parent department. Since common question of law and facts are involved, it will be proper that all the writ petitions may be decided by a common order.

4. The petitioners have come to SUDA from various Departments/Corporation/Govt. Companies and other instrumentalities of the State. The petitioners, who are working in SUDA can be classified in various categories but for purposes of these petitions, they can be classified mainly in two groups. The first category consists of such employees, whose parent department are still existing and functioning; the second category consists of those employees, whose parent department have either become sick or are not existing today.

5. Some of the petitioners are on deputation, while some of them are on contract basis. The main question for consideration before this Court is whether the petitioners have any right under the law to continue in service of SUDA? On the other hand, can SUDA, order for en masse repatriation of all its employees ? Further question is, whether SUDA is repatriating those employees also whose parent department do not exist any more. Can SUDA be allowed to pass and execute such repatriation orders, wherein repatriation order may take form of termination order. Can termination/retrenchment of the employees be allowed to stand in the garb of repatriation. These are some of the questions, which have been argued forcefully, strongly, passionately and compassionately before this Court. Legal arguments have been advanced, at the same time, human considerations have also been directed to visit the conscience of this Court.

6. In almost all the writ petitions, stay order has been granted and the petitioners are working with the opposite party on the strength of such stay orders.

7. The petitioner in W.P. No. 6938 (SS) 2008, has challenged the order of the Director, dated 19.9. 2008, which is contained in annexure no. 1 to the writ petition. This order is of repatriation of the petitioner to the parent department i.e. U.P. Sahkari Chini Mill Limited, on the ground that he has completed five years of his deputation with the SUDA. Simultaneously, the petitioners have challenged the Government Order dated November 15, 2003 issued by the Principal Secretary, Shahari Rozgar Evam Garibi Unmoolan Karyakram Anubhag, as contained in Annexure No.3 to this writ petition, addressed to the Director, SUDA. The subject matter of this order is repatriation of the employees in