1. Learned counsel for the parties stated that these matters are identical in nature and, therefore, may be heard analogously. On the joint request, matters were heard analogously.

2. The singular question needs to be decided in this batch of petitions is whether the action of the respondents in sending the petitioners on deputation without obtaining their consent is permissible and legal ?

3. Petitioners are Constables working in 13th Battalion, Special Armed Force (SAF) Gwalior. They are sent on deputation for three years to State Industrial Security Force (SISF). This order dated 20.2.2014 is called in question in this batch of petitions.

4. Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been sent on deputation without obtaining their consent, which is not permissible. He submits that as per communication dated 19.12.2013 (Annexure P-3) and 3.9.2014, the employees can be sent on deputation provided they have given consent for the same. Reliance is placed by Shri Sharma on 2010(III) MPWN 56=2010(3) MPLJ 452 (Rajaram v. State of M.P.) and another judgment, reported in the same volume at page 401 (K.P.Bhalse v. State of M.P.). In addition, he relied on (1999)4 SCC 659 (Umapati Choudhary v. State of Bihar). He submits that after considering the judgment of Umapati Choudhary (supra), the writ Court in K.P. Bhalse and Rajaram (supra), opined that the deputation without consent is not permissible.

5. Per Contra, Shri Praveen Newaskar, Deputy Government Advocate supported the order. He relied on relevant provision of Fundamental rules and the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1665/2013 (Buddhi Lal Noroji v. State of M.P. and another). He submits that the writ appeal filed against this order was not entertained.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. I deem it apposite to reproduce the relevant statutory provision before dealing with the rival contentions advanced at the bar. The relevant portion of Fundamental rule 110 reads as under :-

“ FR 110. Authorities competent to transfer a Government servant to foreign service :- (a) No Government servant may be transferred to foreign service against his will :

Provided that this sub-rule shall not apply to the transfer of a Government servant to the service of a body, incorporated or not, which is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government.”

“Foreign Service” is defined in Fundamental rule 9(7), which reads as under:-

“(7) “Foreign Service” means service in which a Government servant receives his substantive pay with the sanction of Government (a) from any source other than the revenue of the Governor-General in Council or of a province or the Railway Fund (when established); or (b) from a company working a State Railway.”

8. The question is whether as per Fundamental rules it was necessary to obtain consent of the employees while sending them on deputation to SISF. A plain reading of Fundamental rule 110 makes it clear that a Government servant cannot be transferred to foreign service against his will. The question is whether service in SISF can be treated as “foreign service”. Fundamental rule 9(7) makes it clear that foreign service denotes a service in which an employee receives his substantive pay with the sanction of Government from any source other than revenue of the Governor- General in Council/Governor of a province or the railway fund or from a company working in State Railway. The petitioners have neither pleaded nor proved that the service in SISF amounts to “foreign service”. Proviso to FR 110 in no uncertain term makes it clear that sub-rule (a) shall not be applicable in case of transfer of an employee to the service of a body which is wholly or substantially owned and controlled by the Government. Admittedly, the SISF is owned, administered and controlled by the State Government. Thus, the service in SISF, by no stretch of imagination, can be treated as “foreign ser