JUDGMENT M.P. Singh, J. - Admittedly, the petitioners where the employees of opposite-party No. 1. They were sent on deputation to opposite-party No. 2 vide order dated 12-1-1989. Thereafter on 23-1-1989 a letter was sent by opposite-party No. 1 for obtaining options of the employees who were sent on deputation. The petitioners did not sign the option forms. They continued to be the employees of opposite-party No. 1. They have been, working as mechanical operator, clerk, assistant machine .operator and chowkldar in Kashipur Cold Storage, which was a unit of opposite-party No. 2. 2. On 27-2-1989 the opposite-party No. 1 issued an order stating that since the petitioners have worked for six months on deputation with opposite-party No. 2, they were to be absorbed by them, and services of the petitioners were terminated by opposite-party No. 1. 3. The petitioners have challenged the said order of termination. 4. Now, the point to be considered in this case is whether the petitioners are still the employees of opposite-party No. 1 and are on deputation with opposite-party No. 2, or they have become regular employees of opposite-party No. 2. 5. In the eyes of law an officer on deputation to another department is considered to have lien in the parent department. He is directed only to work with another department. His services are regulated by his parent department. In case the new department is not satisfied with the work of such employees, they can be sent back to their department. This is the option of the new department. But the new department cannot be compelled to absorb these employees. In the instant case option was given to the petitioners, but they have not accepted the said option of being absorbed in the service of opposite-party No. 2, with the result they continued to be the employees of opposite-party No. 1. Their lien continued with it. 6. After the writ petition was filed, a counter-affidavit has been filed by opposite-party No. 2. A specific case has been taken that the petitioners are the employees of opposite-party No. 1. They have been sent on deputation. The petitioners continued to be the employees of opposite-party No. 1 which is reasonable for payment of salary to them now. 7. 6. After the writ petition was filed, a counter-affidavit has been filed by opposite-party No. 2. A specific case has been taken that the petitioners are the employees of opposite-party No. 1. They have been sent on deputation. The petitioners continued to be the employees of opposite-party No. 1 which is reasonable for payment of salary to them now. 7. In the counter-affidavit filed by opposite-party No. 1 it has been stated that vide letter dated 23-1-1989 it was made clear that those employees, who did not like to go to opposite-party No. 2 could be terminated from service. The petitioners have failed to gives opinion, and thus they have opted to joint the service of opposite-party No. 2. They ceased to be their employees. The petitioners' lien with opposite-party No. 1 came to an end automatically. 8. It was further stated that under the terms and conditions of deputation, the deputation came to an end on 31-1-1990 or 3-2-1990. Thereafter, the petitioners became the employees of opposite-party No. 2. The petitioners were employed for the work of Cold Storages only. Since the Cold Storages were transferred to opposite-party No. 2, the petitioners became their employees. It was not possible to take them back in the service. 9. On account of this confusion created by the opposite-parties, a very peculiar situation has arisen. The case set up by the opposite-party No. 2 is that they are employees of opposite-party No. 1, whereas the opposite-party No. I has set up a contrary case. The petitioners do not know under whose employment they are. 10. There is no dispute that the petitioners were employed by opposite-party No. 1. They were sent on deputation to opposite-party No. 2. They were never absorbed there. They, continued to be on deputation. Their lien did not come to an end, with the result that they continued to be the employees of opposite-party No. 1. 11. Under these circumstances, this Court is bound to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite-party No. 1 to treat the petitioners as their employees and to pay the entire amount of salary due to them within a period of three months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before them and shall go op paying the current salary as and when it falls due. The petitioners shall be assigned work as well. 12. The petitioners shall be assigned work as well. 12. In the result, the writ petition succeed; d is allowed with costs.