JUDGMENT 1. THE most accepted methodology of a governmental action is that it ought to be free from any arbitrariness or bias and' it must always be fair, reasonable and in consonance with law. Law Courtis exist to remedy the wrong in the event there is departure from the accepted norms of a governmental action. It is a plain exercise of judicial] power to set right the wrong if inflicted on the basis of administrative high-handedness. 2. THE principal contention raised in this writ petition is that by reason of administrative high-handedness the petitioner has had to suffer enormously and is now moving from pillar to post for the purpose of getting justice and for being reinstated in Burn Standard Company Ltd. Admittedly, M/s. Burn Standard Company Ltd. is a government company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act and a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Before adverting however to the principal contentions raised, a brief narration of the facts would be relevant at this juncture. 3. THE petitioner, originally in the employment of the Railways, was sent on deputation to M/s. Burn Standard Company Ltd. as per latter 's request in. 984. This deputation was effected after interviewing several persons. By a letter dated 28th dune, 1984 addressed to the Secretary, ministry of Railways, Railway Board, New Delhi,, Burn Standard Company ltd. requested for approval and release oh the petitioner for appointment as Deputy Manager (personnel) in the company in the scale of Rs. 1800/--2400/- on usual terms and conditions of deputation and on 10th August, 1984 the Railways released the petitioner on deputation to Burn Standard company Ltd. for appointment to the post, of Deputy Personnel Manager. By an office order dated 3rd September, 1984 the petitioner's joining report was onfirmed by the Deputy Manager (Personnel. Subsequently, by reason of exigencies of situation, the petitioner was further asked to join ivl/3. Bharat Brake and Valves Company, an associate company of M/s. Bum Standard Company Ltd. 4. ON 29th March. 1985 the petitioner was designated on promotion as the Chief of. Personnel of M/s. Bharat Brake and Valves Company and on 11th September, 1985 the petitioner was designated on promotion as Chief of Personnel and Administration in the rank of Deputy General manager of Bharat Brake and Valvs Company. ON 29th March. 1985 the petitioner was designated on promotion as the Chief of. Personnel of M/s. Bharat Brake and Valves Company and on 11th September, 1985 the petitioner was designated on promotion as Chief of Personnel and Administration in the rank of Deputy General manager of Bharat Brake and Valvs Company. There were requests from the Burn Standard Company Ltd. for extension of the deputation period but the Railways intimated by a telegram that extension can not be allowed and the officer may be relieved positively by 2 7th of August, 1986. On 8th January. 1986 by reason of non-extension of the deputation, period the petitioner was given an option for absorption in Burn Standard company Ltd. or to go back to the parent department, namely, the railways. The petitioner duly exercised the option for absorption in the company. By his letter dated 14th February, 1986 and finally on 28th february, 1986 the company indicated the tennis and the company intimated its decision to absorb the petitioner. As appears from records that for all intents and purposes the chapter of absorption of the petitioner with Burn Standard Company. Ltd. was closed and as a matter of fact by a letter dated 8th April, 1986 the Assistant Manager (Accounts) intimated to the Senior Higher divisional Accounts Officer as to the amount payable to the Railways on account of pension and leave salary contribution in respect of the petitioner for his deputation period and finally on 18th April, 1986 the under Secretary, Railway Board intimated Burn Standard Company that the Department of Railways have no objection to the petitioner being permanently absorbed in the Burn Standard Company with effect from 27th August, 1985. The office under dated 1st July, 1986 confirms the permanent absorption of the petitioner in the scale of Rs. l800/ 2400/-with effect from 27th August, 1985. The intimation from Burn Standard company to Bharat Brakes and Valves Company dated 25th July, 1986 corroborates such a state of facts as regards the permanent absorption of the petitioner in M/s. Burn Standard Company. 5. l800/ 2400/-with effect from 27th August, 1985. The intimation from Burn Standard company to Bharat Brakes and Valves Company dated 25th July, 1986 corroborates such a state of facts as regards the permanent absorption of the petitioner in M/s. Burn Standard Company. 5. ON 25th August, 1986, however, the company sounded a different note to the following effect : " Since despite repeated reminders, you have not submitted formal resignation terminating your services with the Railways and further that your extended period of deputation expires on 2 7th August, 1986, thus proposal of your absorption in this company has been reviewed by the' management. After consideration of the relevant facts the management has decided to release you on the expiry of your extended period of deputation with effect from 27th August, 1986 and the office order dated 1st. July, 1986 which was prepared and signed by the Chief of Personnel of the company but not issued, stands revoked. 6. THE Ministry of Transport, Department of Railways was informed of the same and in its turn the Railways intimated the Deputy General manager (Personnel), Burn Standard Co. to the following effect : "sanctioned period of deputation of Mr. B, C. Sinha with burn Standard Company expired on 2 7th August, 1985. No extension was given beyond 2 7th August, 1985. Neither it is permissible under extent government orders. Proposal for permanent absorption of B. C. Sinha 'in Burn Standard Co. with effect from 27th august, 1985 has already been approved, B. C. Sinha should not be relieved. " It is this order of M/s. Burn Standard Company Ltd. in regard to release of the petitioner dated 25th August, 1986 after permanent absorption, which is under challenge as being totally arbitrary and being against ail norms of justice. 7. MR. Malay Basu, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner became a victim of administrative wrath and has been released from the company for seasons which are unknown to the petitioner. It was strenuously on learned that after acceptance of the offer by the petitioner and after regurgitations of the service of the petitioner in Burn Standard Company the question of release of the petitioner does not and cannot arise. MR. It was strenuously on learned that after acceptance of the offer by the petitioner and after regurgitations of the service of the petitioner in Burn Standard Company the question of release of the petitioner does not and cannot arise. MR. Pal, appearing for Burn standard Company, however, submitted that because of the noncompliance of the necessary formalities in regard to the letter of resignation to the Railways, the absorption cannot be given effect to and as such the company has had no other alternative but to release the petitioner to its parent department. The learned counsel appearing for the Railways, however, submitted that once an employee's permanent absorption in another company has been accepted by the Railways, the question of recalling him back any further does not and cannot arise. The situation therefore, in short, stands that the petitioner was asked to join the Burn standard Company as a deputationist for a specific period, the PEN d having expired the company permanently absorbed him and such permanent absorption was accepted by the parent department and after acceptance of such permanent absorption in the company, the latter released the petitioner and parent department also refused to have the employee hack on its roll - a situation which is not only peculiar but rather strange and I find sufficient justification in Mr. Basu's submission that it amounts to a virtual termination of the service without so doing in a formal way. 8. LET us now analyse the situation a little bit further. Would the petitioner be still entitled to go back to the parent department and join ? the learned counsel appearing for the Railways in no uncertain terms submitted that the Railways cannot possibly take the petitioner back after grant of approval of the permanent absorption in the Burn Standard company. Burn Standard Company is not prepared to keep him any longer but invented a novel procedure to get rid of the petitioner without seeking recourse to termination of his services - a procedure which is undoubtedly novel and unknown to law. A technical objection of lack of formal resignation letter to the Railways may be raised if any by the Railway's itself and not by the company. The Railways in no uncertain terms intimated the company that after acceptance of permanent absorption the petitioner ought not to be relieved. A technical objection of lack of formal resignation letter to the Railways may be raised if any by the Railway's itself and not by the company. The Railways in no uncertain terms intimated the company that after acceptance of permanent absorption the petitioner ought not to be relieved. The other aspect of the matter is in regard to the conduct of the respondent, Burn Standard Company. The deputation period expired on 2 7th August, 1985 and the Railways indicated that no extension is possible thereafter - on hearing the same the company offered the petitioner permanent absorption on certain terms - the petitioner accepted the same and thereby relinquished this right to go back to the parent department. Both the petitioner and the company acted on the basis, of such permanent absorption and thereafter all on a sudden the company shifts its stand and released the petitioner - does it stand to reason can it be said to be in accordance with law ? is it fair? - the any answer, in my view available", is in the negative. 9. THE law courts cannot remain a passive spectator in a matter like this when by reason of definite conduct the petitioner alters his position and has had his expectation to serve the company on a permanent, oasis. The law court should rise up to the occasion and set right the wrong inflicted on an employee where justice, morality and fairness dictates such a course and equity so requires. 10. IN that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 25th Au gust, 1986 being Annexure 'q' to the writ petition, is set aside and qua shed and it is ordered that the petitioner be allowed to join the post last held by him on the same scale of salary together with all increments due, if any, immediately. The petitioner is also entitled to his entiresalries together with all allowances since August, 1986. Such arrear salaries together with allowances be paid to the petitioner within a week from date less, however, the amount already received by the petitioner in terms of the orders of this Court. By reason of the special facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner is also entitled to costs of this application assessed at Rs. 1500. 00. Application allowed.