https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189111 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. en-us Thu, 16 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Dec 2016 15:14:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189111 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 16 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189111