1999 (9) TMI 967 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Absorption of the appellant in the employment of Respondent No. 1 Nigam.
2. Termination of the appellant's lien with his parent department.
3. Policy decision and statutory rules regarding absorption of employees on deputation.
4. Interim orders affecting the absorption process.
5. The appellant's right to be considered for absorption based on statutory rules and policy.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Absorption of the appellant in the employment of Respondent No. 1 Nigam:
The appellant was initially appointed in the U.P. Small Industries Corporation Limited (U.P. S.I.C.) as a Civil Engineer on 1.5.1973. He later joined Respondent No. 1, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. (Nigam), on deputation on 19.11.1985. The appellant expressed his willingness for permanent absorption in Nigam by submitting an option letter on 31.12.1987. Despite recommendations from the General Manager (N.E.Z.) for his absorption, no formal order was passed. The appellant continued to work without deputation allowance from 19.11.1990, indicating a de facto absorption. The court concluded that the appellant stood absorbed from 19.11.1990 based on statutory rules and policy.

2. Termination of the appellant's lien with his parent department:
The appellant's parent organization, U.P. S.I.C., declared that his lien would terminate on 30.4.1994 due to his deputation exceeding five years. The appellant challenged this termination and sought absorption in Nigam. The court found that the appellant was prejudiced by the inaction of Nigam in not repatriating him or formally absorbing him after the completion of five years on deputation.

3. Policy decision and statutory rules regarding absorption of employees on deputation:
The relevant statutory rules include the U.P. Absorption of Government Servants in Public Undertakings Rules, 1984, which limit deputation to five years and provide for absorption if applied within three years. Rule 16(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited (Engineers and Architects) Service Rules, 1980, also allows for absorption of deputationists. The court emphasized that once a policy for absorption is accepted and rules are framed, the discretion to absorb must be exercised fairly and not arbitrarily.

4. Interim orders affecting the absorption process:
An interim order dated 17.7.1991 in Writ Petition No. 3947/91 restrained Nigam from absorbing deputationists, affecting the appellant's case. However, the court noted that this interim order was not applicable to the appellant, as his case for absorption was considered in 1988, and he had completed five years of deputation by 19.11.1990.

5. The appellant's right to be considered for absorption based on statutory rules and policy:
The court held that the appellant had a right to be considered for absorption based on Rule 16(3) of the Recruitment Rules and Rule 5 of the U.P. Absorption of Government Servants in Public Undertakings Rules, 1984. The failure of Nigam to pass an appropriate order for absorption or repatriation was deemed unjustified and arbitrary. The court directed Nigam to pass an order absorbing the appellant by 31.12.1999.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashing the High Court's order and the order relieving the appellant. Nigam was directed to absorb the appellant at an appropriate place and date in accordance with the rules, with no order as to costs.