ORDER : Ruma Pal, J. Leave granted. 2. The appellant is a statutory Corporation. The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant is obliged to permit Respondent 1 to continue in the appellant's service. 3. Respondent 1 was employed with the State Government in 1982 in the Planning Department. In 1982 Respondent 1 wrote to the appellant seeking appointment on deputation basis. The appellant agreed to appoint Respondent 1 on deputation. A letter was written by the appellant to the State Planning Institute (the employer of Respondent 1), to issue necessary orders. On 8-6-1984 the State Government issued an order to the effect that if Respondent 1 was desirous of working with the Corporation then he should be permitted to serve on deputation thereafter being relieved of his charge with his parent department. It was also made clear that the lien of Respondent 1 in his parent department would continue while he would be on deputation with the appellant Corporation. Respondent 1 thereafter joined the appellant's services on 13-6-1984. 4. It appears that soon after this in 1987 in exercise of the right conferred by the Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Government Servants in Public Undertakings Rules, 1984, Respondent 1 wrote to the appellant exercising an option to be absorbed with the appellant. The appellant did not agree. As a result, Respondent 1 continued to serve the appellant as a deputationist. In 1992, the appellant wrote to the Government putting on record that Respondent 1 was serving on deputation with the appellant. It was also pointed out in the letter that there had been some confusion in this regard, which had been cleared by the Public Works Department which had issued instructions that deputationist allowance to Respondent 1 should be stopped and that he should revert back to his parent department. The appellant accordingly called upon the Government to issue the necessary orders for the purpose of reverting Respondent 1 back to his parent department. On 29-1-1993, in response to the appellant's letter, the State Government recorded that it had no objection to revert Respondent 1 to his parent department. The parent department was accordingly called upon to issue the necessary posting orders to Respondent 1. On 29-1-1993, in response to the appellant's letter, the State Government recorded that it had no objection to revert Respondent 1 to his parent department. The parent department was accordingly called upon to issue the necessary posting orders to Respondent 1. On 18-1-1994, the State Government passed the necessary order of repatriation and that Respondent 1 "should be relieved immediately so that he is able to take over charge on the post of Research Officer in his parent department in the State Employment Exchange, New Division. Kindly apprise the State Government of the action taken." 5. On receipt of this letter the appellant issued a release order and Respondent 1 was directed to hand over charge to the named officer by 16-9-1994. 6. At this stage, Respondent 1 filed a writ petition before the High Court at Allahabad. The body of the writ petition makes it clear that Respondent 1 admitted the fact that he had been sent on deputation to the appellant. However, he prayed that he should be treated on a par with the regular employees of the appellant not only in the matter of pay but also in the matter of seniority, etc. 7. Interim orders which were passed are no longer relevant but pursuant to an interim order passed by the High Court, Respondent 1 continued to serve the appellant and the appellant has been paying Respondent 1's salary. 8. The writ petition was ultimately disposed of by the impugned order. The High Court noted that although it was settled that a deputationist has no right to be absorbed in service in the place where he was sent on deputation, nevertheless that rule was not applicable in the present case as in the present case, Respondent 1 was not sent on deputation but on transfer. It was also found that the State Government had taken a decision to the effect that Respondent 1 was not its employee and therefore considering the equity and balance of convenience it was appropriate that Respondent 1 should be allowed to work with the appellant. 9. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred this appeal and has submitted that the High Court's decision was completely contrary to the records. It was also pointed out that the State Government had taken inconsistent stands. 9. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred this appeal and has submitted that the High Court's decision was completely contrary to the records. It was also pointed out that the State Government had taken inconsistent stands. Although it had averred in one of its affidavits before the High Court that Respondent 1 was not its employee but at the same time it had taken steps to regularise Respondent 1 and had also initiated disciplinary proceedings against Respondent 1 which was still pending. As far as the regularisation was concerned, the results of Respondent 1's case had been kept in a sealed cover pending decision in the disciplinary proceedings. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent 1 has not disputed that Respondent 1 was in fact sent on deputation and not on transfer to the appellant. However, it was submitted that Respondent 1 was placed in a very precarious situation as he was not in fact being taken back in service by the State Government. 11. In our opinion, Respondent 1 cannot, by reason of any attitude adopted by the State Government, claim to continue in service with the appellant. The records of the case clearly show that Respondent 1 at all material times was on deputation with the appellant. The State Government had sent Respondent 1 on deputation to the appellant and also passed the order of repatriation on the basis that Respondent 1 was an employee of the State Government. If the State Government desires to take any other stand at this stage that would have to be decided in the proceedings other than these. For the purposes of this case we have no hesitation in holding that Respondent 1 was the State Government's employee and was sent on deputation to the appellant. Now that the repatriation order has been passed by the State Government, Respondent 1 cannot claim to be in service with the appellant. The mere fact that he has spent several years in service of the appellant will not alter Respondent 1's position from that of a deputationist to a regular employee. (See State of Punjab v. Inder Singh (1997) 8 SCC 372 . In the circumstances of the case, the appeal is allowed and the decision of the High Court is set aside. (See State of Punjab v. Inder Singh (1997) 8 SCC 372 . In the circumstances of the case, the appeal is allowed and the decision of the High Court is set aside. The State Government shall give effect to the orders passed by the State Government as well as by the appellant on 18-1-1994, 14-9-1994 and 29-1-1993. 12. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.