Judgment Sinha, J. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 22nd December, 1997 passed by a learned Single Judge whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein was allowed. The writ petitioner-first respondent was appointed as a Home Guard in terms of provision of Section 4 of the West Bengal Home Guards Act, 1962 with effect from 14th September, 1976. On or about 5th May, 1987 he sent on deputation to perform his duties as Godown Guard in M/s. West Bengal State Irrigation Corporation Limited, whereafter in terms of letter dated 28th March, 1988 issued by the Senior Adjutant, Home Guards he was released with effect from 8th July, 1988 so that he may report to his parent department for a clearance certificate. While he was on deputation the petitioner had been working with the appellant Corporation. In the said order it was directed:- “He is directed to report to Sub-divisional Engineer to perform law and order with effect from 4.4.88. He should be released on 8.7.88 and will report at this officer along with the C.C. on 12.7.88 otherwise if any problem arise your Dept. will be responsible for that.” 2. Another order was passed earlier on 5.5.87 which is to the following effect:- “He is directed to perform to Sub-divisional Engineer (Civil) B/Set Div. to perform law and order duty for three months. He should be released after there months.” 3. It is also accepted that similar other orders had been passed in that regard. Despite the said order, the petitioner contends he was not released by the appellant-Corporation. to perform law and order duty for three months. He should be released after there months.” 3. It is also accepted that similar other orders had been passed in that regard. Despite the said order, the petitioner contends he was not released by the appellant-Corporation. The first respondent there after filed a writ application which was marked as Matter No. 2510 of 1988 praying inter alia for the following reliefs:- “(a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents, their men and/or agents and/or servants and/or subordinates to treat the petitioner a permanent employees under the State of West Bengal and to pay the salary to the petitioner equivalent to the salary of a police constable appointed in the police Force under Government of West Bengal from 14th September, 1976 and to give all service benefits to the petitioner accordingly; (b) A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents, their men and/or agents and/or servants and/or subordinates to absorb the petitioner permanently as Godown Guard in M/s. West Bengal State Minor Irrigation Corporation Ltd., a West Bengal Govt. undertaking at its sub-division at Barasat, 24-Parganas (North); (c) A writ in the nature of Certiorari commanding the respondents, their men and/or agents and/or servant and/or subordinates to transmit all the records relating to the case before this Hon’ble Court so that conscionable Justice may be administered.” 4. In the said writ application ad interim order was passed on 6th May, 1988, directing the appellant-Corporation not to take any steps for releasing the writ petitioner. 5. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties the learned Trial Judge inter alia held that keeping in view the fact period of deputation had expired and despite regularization of the petitioner by the authorities of the Home Gourd Department, he had not been released by the appellant, it must be presumed that he had lost his lien in his parent department. 6. In the aforementioned situation, the learned Trial Judge directed:- “In all these facts and circumstances of this case, I allow this writ petition by directing the respondent-Corporation to permanently absorb the writ petitioner as Godown Guard or to permanently employ him in any other suitable post forthwith without affecting his financial benefits as drawn by him till date. Such absorption should be given effect to from the date of joining his duties in the said Corporation on deputation. Such absorption should be given effect to from the date of joining his duties in the said Corporation on deputation. The writ petitioner will receive all service benefit as a permanent employee of the said Corporation with effect from the date as above. It is also directed that in the event there is no such suitable post lying vacant in the said Corporation then it will create such a post with equivalent financial benefits for the purpose of absorbing the petitioner. However, this order of absorption of the writ petitioner in the said Corporation will not be treated as precedence for others. This writ petition is, thus, allowed.” 7. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has raised a short question in support of this appeal. The learned Counsel submitted that the first respondent being Home Guard and having been an employee of the concerned department and his services being governed by a statute, the impugned directing his absorption in the appellant-Corporation is bad in law. The learned Counsel appears to be correct. The first respondent, as noticed hereinabove, was appointed as a Home Guard in terms of Section 4 of the Home Guards Act, 1962. His terms and conditions of service were, therefore, governed by the said Act. In terms of the provisions of the said Act, the petitioner could be deputed to perform his duties with any public sector organizations. Such deputation by a parent department is only for a temporary period. 8. A person whose conditions of service are governed by a statutory Act could not be, in our considered opinion, directed to be permanently absorbed unless and until the petitioner gives up his lien and his services are permanently absorbed by a voluntary act by the appellant-Corporation. It is not the case of the first respondent that he had given his lien nor was it his case that he had been permanently released by his parent department. The learned Trial Judge has himself help that the first respondent is a permanent employee of the State of West Bengal. The terminology ‘deputation’ in service jurisprudence has a definite connotation. The learned Trial Judge has himself help that the first respondent is a permanent employee of the State of West Bengal. The terminology ‘deputation’ in service jurisprudence has a definite connotation. Deputee cannot claim any legal right to be absorbed in a department where he had been deputed except under an appropriate order and that too when the lien with his parent department is terminated and, thus, in the considered opinion of this Court the learned Trial Judge has committed an error in issuing the aforementioned directions. The question remains as to what relief the first respondent was entitled in law. The first respondent having been deputed to serve the appellant-Corporation is entitled to the salary for the period during which he had worked with it. In the event the appellant-Corporation intends to send the first respondent back to his parent department, the latter is bound to take back his service and give him a suitable posting in terms of the provisions of the West Bengal Home Guard Act. It is made clear that only because the petitioner was on lien with the appellant-Corporation for a long time the same would not mean that a break in service had occurred. The petitioner, thus, would be deemed to in continuous employment. 9. In view of the aforementioned clear legal position we in modification of the order passed by the learned Trial Judge direct that in the event the appellant-Corporation releases the first respondent herein he shall be taking back in his services by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and shall provide a suitable posting to him. It is also made clear that the first respondent shall be entitled to the benefit to which he was otherwise entitled had he hot been deputed to the appellant-Corporation. 10. This appeal is disposed of with the aforementioned directions. No order as to costs. All parties are to act on a xeroxed certified copy of this judgment expeditiously on the usual undertaking. Bhattacharjee, J. : I agree.