JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava, & K.N. Goyal, JJ.. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order returning him to his parent department. He had been on deputation with the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and was ff f serving as a secretary of a Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti. He is being repatriated even before the expiry of a period of five years. Under government orders five years is maximum period for deputation and learned counsel for the petitioner contends that normally persons on deputation are sent back only after completing five years and not before and the petitioner is being discriminated by being sent back before the expiry of five years A similar order of repatriation relating to one Pohari Saran Tripathi was challenged before the Allahabad Bench of this Court and that writ petition was dismissed. But on special leave petition of that petitioner the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed to issue show cause notice a d in he meantime the maintenance of status quo. Learned counsel for the Mandi Parishad has pointed out that in Pohari Saran Tripathi case, allegations of malafide against the minister of department and against some high officers had been levelled and it was mainly because of those allegations, as intimated by the counsel for Mandi Parishad in the Supreme Court, that notice was issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the instant case there are no allegations of malafide against any officer or minister and as such this case is distinguishable. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length we are of the opinion that the matter is concluded by several decisions of different benches of this Court. In R.M. Yadav v.. State of U.P. (1981 Lucknow Law Times (Services Cases) 334) another Bench, of which one of us was a member dismissed a similar writ petition filed by a person who was being reverted from the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad to the Agriculture Department of the State Government and had challenged the order of return from deputation . Of course, all the grounds of challenge were not similar but pleas based on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution were taken even in that petition. This bench had also dismissed a similar writ petition no. Of course, all the grounds of challenge were not similar but pleas based on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution were taken even in that petition. This bench had also dismissed a similar writ petition no. 2596 of 83 on 26.5.83(S.R. Tripathi v. State of U.P.)which related to return from deputation to a different corporation of the State, namely U. P. Rajya Nirman Nigam. Thus the mere fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued show cause notice on S. L. P., does not detract from the authority of these different decisions of coordinate benches of this Court. 3. Accordingly we find no merits in this petition. It is dismissed in limine. (Petition dismissed in limine)