Absorption of deputationist under service rules upheld where timely option, recommendation, and continued service showed arbitrary refusal

Rule 16(3) of the service rules and Rule 5 of the Absorption Rules were treated as permitting absorption of a deputationist where the employee applied within time, the competent authority recommended the case, and absorption was consistent with public interest and the agreed terms. On the facts noted, the employee had opted within the prescribed period, remained in service beyond five years without repatriation, and the deputation allowance was stopped, while no justifiable reason was shown for rejecting his claim. The inaction was therefore described as arbitrary, and the refusal to absorb him, together with the consequential relieving order, could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether a deputationist was entitled to absorption in the borrowing undertaking under the applicable service rules and absorption rules, and whether the refusal to absorb and the subsequent relief order terminating the appellant's continuation in service were sustainable.

Analysis: Rule 16(3) of the Nigam's service rules permitted absorption of persons on deputation or transfer on terms agreed between the Board, the employee and the present employer, and Rule 5 of the Absorption Rules enabled absorption where the employee applied within the prescribed period and the Government agreed in public interest. The appellant had exercised his option within time, his case had been recommended by the zone-level authority, and he continued beyond five years without repatriation, while deputation allowance was also stopped. The absence of any justifiable reason for non-consideration or rejection, together with the accepted policy of absorption and the applicable statutory framework, made the Nigam's inaction arbitrary. The interim order obtained by other employees did not defeat the appellant's independently considered claim.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to be considered and treated as absorbed under the applicable rules, and the refusal to absorb him and the consequential relieving order could not be sustained.

---