RABI DAS GUPTA v. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA — 1985 DIGILAW 32 (CAL)

AJIT KUMAR SENGUPTA, J. ( 1 ) ON 23rd August, 1984 the present writ application was moved by 10 employees of the Food Corporation of India challenging the decision of the Corporation to absorb in its services and treat as it regular employees approximately about 2837 employees of the Government of West Bengal on deputation with the said Corporation. Rule nisi was issued and interim order was also passed restraining the respondents from taking any step or further steps for absorption of the deputationists. ( 2 ) AN application has been filed by the Food Corporation of India for vacating the said interim order. Some of the deputationists who are affected by the said interim order have made an application for being added as parties to the writ application. The said application was allowed. The added respondents have also filed an application for vacating the said interim order. ( 3 ) ELABORATE arguments have been made by Mr. Dipankar Gupta, for the writ petitioner, Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee for the added respondents and Mr. Kanan Ghosh for the Food Corporation of India. Before I deal with the respective contentions it is necessary to set out certain facts. ( 4 ) IN the year 1966 the Corporation was entrusted with the job of reception, payment, purchase, storage, transport, disposal and sales of food grains and other food-stuff within the State of West Bengal by the Government of West Bengal as an agent of the latter. The officer and staff of the State Government actually engaged in discharging the aforesaid functions were sent to the said Corporation to serve under it on deputation. An agreement was entered into by and between the Food Corporation of India and the State of West Bengal, which is contained in the letter dated 26th November 1966 of the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal to the Corporation. ( 5 ) THERE has been a number of proceedings between the deputationists serving in the Corporation and the employees of the Corporation regarding promotion and also absorption of such deputationists in the services of the Corporation. ( 5 ) THERE has been a number of proceedings between the deputationists serving in the Corporation and the employees of the Corporation regarding promotion and also absorption of such deputationists in the services of the Corporation. In the case of (1) Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India v. Subodh Kumar Guha, a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Corporation from the judgment of the learned Trial Judge holding that the Corporation did not have any power to give an ad-hoc promotion to the deputationists serving under it. The Supreme Court granted special leave to the Food Corporation of India to prefer an appeal against the said judgment dated 13th June, 1966 of the Division Bench of this Court and the said appeal is still pending. ( 6 ) IT appears that one deputationist filed application under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court, which is pending. The said deputationist claimed for absorption in the services of the Corporation on a regular basis. All affidavit-in-opposition was filed in November 1980 by the Food Corporation of India to the said writ application before the Supreme Court (being writ Petition No. 149 of 1980 ). In the said affidavit-in-opposition it was, inter alia, stated by the Food Corporation of India that the Staff Regulations of the Food Corporation of India are not applicable to the deputationists and none of its provision has conferred any right to the deputationists for permanent absorption in the Corporation. It was further stated in the said affidavit that the deputationists had wrongly based their claims under Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1971 as the deputationists were engaged by the Corporation purely by virtue of the Agreement dated 26th November, 1966. They have no right to claim to apply the Regulations 1971 to their case. It was also stated therein that the deputationists are purely a class distinct and separate from any other category of employees of the Corporation and they cannot be treated at par with other employees of the Corporation. ( 7 ) IN the year 1982 the Corporation sought to grant some extra allowance to a number of deputationists working with the Corporation with higher responsibility. The said action of the Food Corporation of India was challenged by a number of regular employees of the Corporation including the present writ petitioners. ( 7 ) IN the year 1982 the Corporation sought to grant some extra allowance to a number of deputationists working with the Corporation with higher responsibility. The said action of the Food Corporation of India was challenged by a number of regular employees of the Corporation including the present writ petitioners. Chittatosh Mokerjee, J. disposed of the said writ application on 18th April 1983 by the following order: -"i, therefore dispose of this application by directing that the deployment orders impugned in the application by treated as purely temporary and for a duration of six months from this day or such period as mentioned in the deployment period whichever would first expire. I direct the Food Corporation of India to take steps for filling up in accordance with Staff Regulations the posts to which the deputationists have been deployed as mentioned in the Writ Petition. The said filling up of the posts in the regular manner be made as early as possible but in any case within a period not exceeding six months. Let a copy of this order be prepared by the Office and made over to the learned advocate on record for the Food Corporation of India. " ( 8 ) AN appeal was preferred by the aggrieved deputationists against the said order of Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. In the said appeal (F. A. M. T. No. 1376 of 1983) an application was filed for stay of the said order of Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. The Appeal Court consisting of M. M. Dutt and G. N. Ray, JJ. Passed an order on 20th December 1983 as follows: -"after hearing the learned Advocates of the parties and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the promotions which have been already given or which are under consideration may be given purely on an ad-hoc basis subject to the result of the appeal. The Food Corporation of India is also directed to work out of the decision of the Board of Directors of the Corporation dated May 27, 1983 regarding the absorption of the West Bengal State Government deputationists in the Corporation within six months from date. It is made clear that if any such deputationist is absorbed by the Food Corporation of India, he will also be considered for promotion. It is made clear that if any such deputationist is absorbed by the Food Corporation of India, he will also be considered for promotion. It is also made clear that pending the absorption of the deputationists the promotion, which has been already directed, may not be withheld. Regulation of this ad-hoc promotions will be considered after the absorption of the deputationists. "it appears that the Board of the Food Corporation of India adopted a Resolution on 1st June 1983 for absorption of the West Bengal State Government deputationists in the Corporation in principle subject to certain conditions and guidelines. On 19th March 1984 Food Corporation of India issued a Circular regarding the terms and conditions of absorption of West Bengal State Government deputationists in the service of the Food Corporation. It appears that thereafter, the deputationists gave option for being permanently absorbed in the Food Corporation of India, and o 13th August 1984 an order was passed absorbing one deputationist in the Corporation. The said decision and the order have been impugned in this proceeding. ( 9 ) THE agreement dated 26th November 1966 entered into by and between the Food Corporation of India and the State of West Bengal was terminated and the Corporation issued a Notice of termination on 26th October 1979. It is not in dispute that even after the termination of the said agreement dated 26th November, 1966 the arrangements contemplated under the said agreement dated 26th November, 1966 have been continuing and the deputationists have been working with the Corporation. Most of the deputationists have been working since 1966 with the Food Corporation of India. State of West Bengal never objected to the absorption of the deputationists in the regular employment with the Corporation. The contentions of the writ petitioners are that the absorption of the deputationists would be contrary to the Staff Regulations and such absorption would adversely affect the prospect of promotion of the regular employees of the Corporation. ( 10 ) MR. Dipankar Gupta learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners has submitted that the manner of filling up the posts is prescribed by the Staff Regulations. In the categories (II, III and IV) with which the writ petitioners are concerned, recruitment is 100% by promotion. Therefore, any absorption would be in violation of the said Regulations. ( 10 ) MR. Dipankar Gupta learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners has submitted that the manner of filling up the posts is prescribed by the Staff Regulations. In the categories (II, III and IV) with which the writ petitioners are concerned, recruitment is 100% by promotion. Therefore, any absorption would be in violation of the said Regulations. He has drawn my attention to Clause 7 (1) of the Staff Regulations, 1971 which reads as follows: -" (1 ). Regular appointments in the service of the Corporation can only be to the posts specified in column (2) of the Table set out in Appendix 1 sanctioned for a period of not less than one year and shall be made - (a)in accordance with any of the modes specific against each in column (4) thereof; or (b)by transfer from the corresponding categories as specified in column (9) of the said Table of employees of the Central Government in the Directorate General of Food/pay and Accounts Officer; or (c)by permanent absorption of deputationists in the service of the Corporation. "appendix 1 to the said Staff Regulations contains a Statement showing various categories of posts, scale of pay, mode of recruitment etc. column (4) of Appendix 1 specifies the made of recruitment. In some of the posts, 100% by promotion and in some other cases 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment. Mr. Gupta, therefore, submits that where the recruitment is to be made 100% by promotion there is no scope of any absorption and such absorption will be contrary to the mode of recruitment as provided in the Staff Regulations. The contention of Mr. Gupta cannot be accepted. A discretion has been given to the Food Corporation of India to resort to different modes prescribed in Clause 7 of the Staff Regulations. The modes prescribed are alternative. If the Food Corporation of India decides to fill up the posts in accordance with the modes specified against each of the posts in column (4), in that event the Corporation would be bound to follow the mode prescribed therein. There is no mandate upon Food Corporation of India to adopt any particular mode of appointment as prescribed in Clause 7 (1 ). It has been specifically provided in Clause 7 (1) (c) that there can be permanent absorption of deputationists in the services of the Corporation. There is no mandate upon Food Corporation of India to adopt any particular mode of appointment as prescribed in Clause 7 (1 ). It has been specifically provided in Clause 7 (1) (c) that there can be permanent absorption of deputationists in the services of the Corporation. When this mode is selected in column (4) of Appendix 1 will not arise. It does not appear to me that permanent absorption deputationists in terms of Clause 7 (1) will be contrary to Staff Regulations. On the contrary, in absence of any specific Ruleline Clause 7 (1) (c) permanent absorption of deputationists could not have been made. For the purpose of executing the policy and the work of the Food Corporation of India, Food Corporation has to depend upon the respective State Government employees and that is why the Staff Regulations have taken care of suit contingency and provided that deputationists who would be in the service of Corporation may be permanently absorbed in due course. ( 11 ) THE next contention of Mr. Dipankar Gupta is that Staff Regulations themselves provide for absorption of deputationists as an alternative method of filling up posts. The case of the Food Corporation depends on this clause. The Regulations however do not apply to the added respondents as is being contended before the Supreme Court by F. C. I. , Food Corporation of India cannot take a contradictory stand. If the Regulations do not apply the absorption is in violation of the writ petitioner's right under the Regulations. ( 12 ) IT is true that the Food Corporation of India in their affidavit before the Supreme Court have stated that the Staff Regulations do not apply to the deputationists and they cannot claim as a matter of right permanent absorption. In the application for vacating the interim order filed by the Food Corporation of India it has been stated that in the context of changed circumstances and development and in the exigencies of the work and for meeting the administrative need, policy decision was taken by the Corporation as contained in the Regulation dated 1st June, 1983 for absorption of the deputationists in the service of the Corporation. Apparently there may be some inconsistency the stand taken by the Food Corporation before the Supreme Court and to in the present proceeding. Apparently there may be some inconsistency the stand taken by the Food Corporation before the Supreme Court and to in the present proceeding. It however, appears to me that the Food Corporation of India took the stand that the Staff Regulations do not apply to the deputationists of the West Bengal and therefore, the deputationists cannot claim any right under the Staff Regulations for being absorbed in the Corporation. In other words the stand of the Food Corporation of India is that they have the power and right but no obligation or duty to absorb in its services the deputationists permanently. So long as the deputationists are not permanently absorbed, they cannot have any claim to any benefits or promotion under the Staff Regulations. The Staff Regulations apply to all the employees of the Corporation including transferred employees under section 12a of the Food Corporation Act, 1964. The said transferred employees are also deputationists but they are governed by the Staff Regulations whereas the deputationists of the State of West Bengal were taken over by the Food Corporation of India in terms of the Agreement dated 28th November 1966. Accordingly, they cannot base their claims under the Staff Regulations. Although the deputationists cannot claim the right of permanent absorption either under the Staff Regulations of or as a matter of right, the Food Corporation of India, however, have authority and jurisdiction to permanently absorb the deputationists. This power is conferred to the Corporation by the Staff Regulations. It is not in dispute that a decision has been taken by the Food Corporation of India to absorb permanently the deputationists on certain terms and conditions. Such policy decision unless contrary to any statutory rues or mala fide cannot be challenged. I am, therefore, unable to accept the contention of Mr. Gupta that if the Regulations do not apply, the absorption would be in direct violation of the writ petitioner's rights under the Regulations. The right of the writ petitioners are not and cannot be curtailed by the absorption of the deputationists. What is contended is that the chances of promotion of the writ petitioners would be affected if the absorption of the deputationists is made in different categories of posts. In other words seniority of the writ petitioners would be seriously affected if there is permanent absorption of the deputationists. What is contended is that the chances of promotion of the writ petitioners would be affected if the absorption of the deputationists is made in different categories of posts. In other words seniority of the writ petitioners would be seriously affected if there is permanent absorption of the deputationists. Thus a valuable right of the writ petitioners is being taken away. It has been contended by Mr. Saktinath Mukehrjee for the added respondents that this plea has no substance. He has relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of (2) Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority v. Ujjal Kumar Ghosh reported in 1982 (II) CHN 17 where the Division Bench held that if the Regulation authorities then the principle of weight age can be followed. In the matter of computation of seniority weight age formula can only be applied to the deputationists when they are absorbed in the services and thereby becoming employees of the organization. However, relevant Regulation must authorize the authorities concerned to lay down such formula. The Division Bench in the aforesaid case observed as follows: -"it is now an accepted principle of law that in order to remove disparity between two sets of employees recruited from different sources, as in the present case, direct recruits and deputationists, some weight age has to be given to the deputationists having regard to their past services in the departments wherefrom they have been drawn. As to what should be the weight age will depend absolutely on the policy of the organization where they would be integrated. Further such a rule, if framed, granting weightage to the deputationists some hardship, inconvenience or injustice is bound to result to some members of the employees, but that is unavoidable. It is difficult to devise any full-proof scheme, which will satisfy all sections of employees. Such a rule will no doubt falsify the expectations of some employees who are, in the instant cases, the direct recruits. The above views find support from a number of decisions of the Supreme Court (Page-29 ). It is difficult to devise any full-proof scheme, which will satisfy all sections of employees. Such a rule will no doubt falsify the expectations of some employees who are, in the instant cases, the direct recruits. The above views find support from a number of decisions of the Supreme Court (Page-29 ). ""it is settled law that the service conditions pertaining to seniority are liable to alteration by subsequent changes that may be introduced in the rules and except to the extent of protecting promotions that have already been earned under the previous rules, the revised rules will operate to govern the seniority and future promotion prospects of all the persons in the concerned service. It will not be reasonable, just or fair to determine the seniority of the permanently seconded service personnel merely on the basis of the date of their secondment to the organization (page-31 ). " ( 13 ) IT is contended that the aforesaid decision has no application to this case, inasmuch as, the directly recruited staff of C. M. D. A. did not have any right of 100% promotion as the petitioners in this case have. Furthermore, the deputationists in that case was treated as the employees of the C. M. D. A. prior to their absorption whereas the deputationists in this case have not been treated so far the employees of the Food Corporation of India. It is contended that these two distinguishing features make it quite clear that the said decision has no application to this case. I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Gupta that the petitioners have vested right of promotion of 100% in most of the posts and the valuable right of promotion given under the Statutory Regulations are taken away by the process of absorption of the said deputationists in violation of the Staff Regulations. The right of promotion as contained in the Regulations will depend on how the authorities would proceed to fill up the vacancies. When there are alternative modes of appointment the employees cannot as a matter of right ask the authorities to select a particular mode. The right of promotion as contained in the Regulations will depend on how the authorities would proceed to fill up the vacancies. When there are alternative modes of appointment the employees cannot as a matter of right ask the authorities to select a particular mode. The right of the Food Corporation of India to absorb the deputationists serving with them cannot be taken away or curtailed even if in the exercise of such right some adjustment has to be made in the respective position of the regular employees and the deputationists who are sought to be absorbed. In my view, on principle there cannot be any distinction between a case where the deputationists are treated as employees of the organization where they are deputed and in a case where the deputationists are in the service of such organization for about 20 years. ( 14 ) THE mere chance of promotion is not a condition of service. There is no right to any chance of promotion. There may be some adverse effect in consequence of an absorption but if such absorption is done lawfully, the writ petitioners, cannot have any legitimate grievances even if their seniority and chance of promotion are affected by absorption of the deputationists. The contention of Mr. Gupta that the valuable right of the writ petitioners are being taken away must, therefore, fail. ( 15 ) THE next contention of Mr. Gupta is that even if the Regulations are considered to apply to the deputationists, the exercise of power to absorb the deputationists is arbitrary and illegal. In terms of the agreement dated 26th November, 1966, the deputationists came to perform the agency job of West Bengal Government in F. C. I. The job is now being taken back by West Bengal Government. The agreement stands terminated. Now if the deputationists remain in spite of the aforesaid facts and are absorbed in F. C. I. that would amount to direct recruitment. Such absorption would be in violation of the F. C. I. Staff Regulations. The Regulations cannot contemplate absorption of a deputationist when the function for which the deputationist came on deputation is not being retained by F. C. I. This is therefore, not a case of absorption but direct recruitment. ( 16 ) I am unable to accept this contention of Mr. Gupta. The Regulations cannot contemplate absorption of a deputationist when the function for which the deputationist came on deputation is not being retained by F. C. I. This is therefore, not a case of absorption but direct recruitment. ( 16 ) I am unable to accept this contention of Mr. Gupta. It is not in dispute that even though the agreement dated 26th November, 1966 was terminated in 1979, the arrangements as proved under the said agreement are being continued. It cannot be said that since the agreement stands terminated, the deputation also stands cancelled or withdrawn and if the deputationists are absorbed in the Food Corporation of India that would amount to direct recruitment. So long as the deputationists are not withdrawn by the State Government and their deputation is not cancelled, they shall remain on deputation whether the agreement dated 26th November, 1966 expired or not. If the deputationists are withdrawn from the Corporation and placed at the disposal of the State Government (as has been done in some cases as mentioned in Annexure "x-1" to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the writ petitioners to the application for vacating the interim order), those employees however, cannot be absorbed. If the person whose deputation has been cancelled is absorbed in the Corporation, it will amount to direct recruitment by the Food Corporation and such recruitment would be contrary to the Staff Regulations. This question does not arise in the case. We are only concerned with those deputationists who are still in the services of the Food Corporation of India. Even after the agreement by the Food Corporation, ad-hoc arrangement has been continuing since 1979 from year to year. Thus, the position as was existing under the agreement dated 26th November, 1966 is still continuing and the status of deputationists remain unaffected. The question is not whether the agreement stands terminated. The question is whether the deputationists are still on deputation with the Food Corporation of India. If they are treated as on deputation, then under the Staff Regulations the Corporation have the power, authority and jurisdiction to permanently absorb such deputationists. ( 17 ) THE next contention of Mr. Gupta is that the interim order passed by the Division Bench does not give any mandate o the Food Corporation of India to absorb the deputationists. If they are treated as on deputation, then under the Staff Regulations the Corporation have the power, authority and jurisdiction to permanently absorb such deputationists. ( 17 ) THE next contention of Mr. Gupta is that the interim order passed by the Division Bench does not give any mandate o the Food Corporation of India to absorb the deputationists. If in working such cases of absorption it is found that the absorption would be against the Staff Regulations, in that case such absorption cannot take place. There is illegality in the action actually taken by the Corporation. Furthermore, the order of the Division Bench is an inter-locutory order; the writ petitioners being not parties to such order are not bound by the same. It is not correct that the writ petitioners were not parties before the Division Bench, inasmuch as, the paragraph 7 of the writ petition it is stated that "the purported grant of or special allowances was challenged by a number of regular employees of the F. C. I. including the present petitioners". Before the said order was passed by the Division Bench on 20th December, 1983 the policy decision had already been taken by the F. C. I. on 1st June, 1983 for absorption of the deputation of the deputationists in the regular service of the F. C. I. That in why the Division Bench directed F. C. I. to work out the question of absorption of the deputationists. The said order of the Division Bench not only binds the petitioners but Food Corporation of India as well. There was no injunction restraining the Corporation from implementing the Policy as regards the absorption of the deputationists. The deputationists are sought to be absorbed on the basis of the decision taken by the Corporation. So long as the said decision is not set aside which, of course, under challenge in this writ petition, the F. C. I. can implement such decision. As indicated earlier, the permanent absorption of the deputationists is not contrary to the Staff Regulations. No material has been placed before me to show that in working out the case of absorption, F. C. I. has acted contrary to the Staff Regulations or there is any illegality in the action taken by them. The question is whether the F. C. I. can permanently absorb the deputationists. No material has been placed before me to show that in working out the case of absorption, F. C. I. has acted contrary to the Staff Regulations or there is any illegality in the action taken by them. The question is whether the F. C. I. can permanently absorb the deputationists. If in implementing the decision any error or illegality is committed by the Corporation, such action can be challenged in the appropriate forum. ( 18 ) MR. Gupta ten contends that the State Government has revised their stand as regards absorption of the deputationists as would appear from the letters of the Chief Minister and the Minister-in-charge, Food and Supplies Department of the State of West Bengal written to the Union Minister of Food and Supplies. According to Mr. Gupta unless the State Government consents or agrees to absorption, the deputationists cannot be absorbed. It is not known how the writ petitioners can get hold of the copies of the aforesaid letters written by the Chief Minister and the Minister-in-charge, Food and Supplies. In the letter of the Minister-in-charge, Food and Supplies dated 13th August, 1984 it has been, inter alia, stated as follows: -"the agreement between the State Government and the F. C. I. lays down the procedure to be followed in case of absorption of the deputationists and their reversion of the State Government Services. Under the agreement, a Committee is required to be set up consisting of the officers of the State Government and the F. C. I. and until such a Committee is set up and it goes into the matter, you will appreciate that no decision can be taken by the State Government. There is no doubt that the Committee to be set up as provided in the agreement will go into all aspects, on the basis of relevant documents and records, to come to the findings. Until the process is completed in the manner provided in the agreement, you will appreciate; it is premature now for the State Government to take a decision. In the matter of absorption of the deputationists the views of the State Government are well known. Until the process is completed in the manner provided in the agreement, you will appreciate; it is premature now for the State Government to take a decision. In the matter of absorption of the deputationists the views of the State Government are well known. In view of the facts that according to the Government of India as well as F. C. I. , the pendency of the proceeding before the Supreme Court does not affect the question of absorption or otherwise of the deputationists, the difficulty that was apparently felt by the Government of India in the matter of the functions of the High Level Committee set up to work out the modalities of the transfer of the functions to the State Government need no longer hold up the finalization of the matter. We feel that it is now necessary for the High Level Committee to start functioning and I would request you to please issue appropriate instructions so that the Committee might meet to go into the matter relating to the transfer of F. C. I. 's functions to the State Government," ( 19 ) THE Chief Minister of West Bengal in his letter dated 13th September 1984 stated as follows: -"this is about the issues relating to absorption of deputationists by the F. C. I. in West Bengal. Some representatives of the Co-ordination Committee of F. C. I. employees met me yesterday and gave me a memorandum (copy enclosed) containing their grievances. You must have recorded a copy also. Some of the issues raised in the memorandum seem to be of major significance and they were not known to me earlier. Related to this is the long pending issues of the transfer of the agency functions now discharged by the F. C. I. back to the State Government and the recent injunction issued by the High Court, Calcutta. " ( 20 ) THE above letters relied upon by the writ petitioners do not support their contention that the State Government has withdrawn their consent or that they have objection to the absorption of the deputationists. " ( 20 ) THE above letters relied upon by the writ petitioners do not support their contention that the State Government has withdrawn their consent or that they have objection to the absorption of the deputationists. The only grievance, at it appears, is that the Committee for implementing the procedural aspects of absorption, has not been set up and the State Government might take back some of the functions given to the F. C. I. So long as the deputationists are not withdrawn by the State Government, the State Government cannot object to the absorption of their Officers in the F. C. I. As a matter of fact, by letter dated November 28, 1980, the Deputy Secretary, Food and Supplies Department, Government of West Bengal informed the F. C. I. Deputationists' Association that the State Government would have no objection to the absorption in the F. C. I. of the employees of the Food and Civil Supplies Department now working on deputation to that organization on their agreement to forgo their lien on the posts they held in the parent department and such employees on absorption will have no right to revert to the parent department. The State Government would have no liability whatsoever in respect of such employees absorbed in the F. C. I. for any period subsequent to the date of their absorption. There is another letter dated March 25, 1983 from the Deputy Secretary of the Food and Civil Supplies Department to the Zonal Manager, F. C. I. wherein it has been stated that the State Government after due consideration of the letter of absorption of the State Government employees in the F. C. I. have agreed to extend the benefit of pro-rata pension and gratuity as laid down in Clause 189a of the West Bengal Services (D. C. R. B.) Rules, 1971 as a special case. It must, therefore, be held that the State Government has no objection in principle to the absorption of the deputationists to the Food Corporation of India. ( 21 ) ANOTHER contention raised by Mr. Ashok Ganguly, learned Advocate for the writ petitioners is that the respondents and/or the added respondents are not the deputationists referred to in section 7 (1) (c) of the Staff Regulation. ( 21 ) ANOTHER contention raised by Mr. Ashok Ganguly, learned Advocate for the writ petitioners is that the respondents and/or the added respondents are not the deputationists referred to in section 7 (1) (c) of the Staff Regulation. Such deputationists are those who are the employees of the Central Government and various public sector undertakings who are working under F. C. I. post. Such deputationists are working in F. C. I. on deputation in F. C. I. posts and not against their previous posts. It is contended that it is one thing to work on deputation in F. C. I. and it is entirely a different thing to work on deputation in the service of the F. C. I. The State Government deputationists have not been working in any of the posts in respect of which they hold a lien under the Government of West Bengal. The deputationists also get Performa promotion from the posts they are holding. It is, therefore, clear that the State Government deputationists cannot be absorbed under the existing provisions of F. C. I. Regulations and if such absorption takes place that will be in contravention of F. C. I. Staff Regulations, 1971. It is also contended that the service of the deputationists under the F. C. I. is to be termed as Foreign Service within the meaning of Rule 3 (12) of the West Bengal Services Rules, Part I. As such the State Government Deputationists are subject to the provisions of the said Rules and not F. C. I. Staff Regulations. ( 22 ) IT is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioners. It is true that the deputationists from West Bengal were not holding the posts in F. C. I. but they were in the services of the F. C. I. Accordingly, the F. C. I. has the power to absorb them. Clause 7 (1) (c) of the Staff Regulations empowers the F. C. I. to absorb the deputationists permanently in the service of the Corporation. It cannot be disputed that the deputationists, although not holding the posts in F. C. I. , are in the service of F. C. I. Their salaries are being paid by F. C. I. and not by the State Government. It cannot be disputed that the deputationists, although not holding the posts in F. C. I. , are in the service of F. C. I. Their salaries are being paid by F. C. I. and not by the State Government. Clause 65 of the Staff Regulations empowers the F. C. I. to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the officers borrowed, inter alia, from the State Government subject to certain conditions mentioned therein. Therefore, the Discipline and Appeal Regulations of F. C. I. would apply not only to the employees of the F. C. I. but to the staff who have been borrowed from the State Government. In other words, who are on deputation with the F. C. I. would be treated as its employees for the purpose of Discipline and Appeal Regulations. State Government deputationists cannot hold any posts in the F. C. I. until they are absorbed but they are in service with the F. C. I. and F. C. I. have the power to absorb them. The grievance of the deputationists are that because they do not hold posts in F. C. I. , they are deprived of attendant benefits of the posts and their permanent absorption with F. C. I. would redress their grievance. ( 23 ) ALL the contentions are thus disposed of. Having regard to the balance of convenience and inconvenience and having regard to the facts and circumstances as stated hereinabove. I am of the view that the writ petitioners cannot ask for any interim order restraining the Food Corporation of India from implementing the decision as regards absorption of the deputationists. ( 24 ) FOR the reason aforesaid, the interim order passed by me on 23rd August 1984 is vacated. The Food Corporation of India will be at liberty to absorb the deputationists but such absorption will abide by the result of the Rule. Let this order remain stayed till 8th February 1985. Let a plain copy of this order duly countersigned by an officer of this Court be handed over to the respective parties.