Suresh Kait, J. 1. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order dated 13.05.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principle Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 2128/2002, have filed the present writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 2 to 43 herein were employees of the respondent No.1 herein i.e. the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and they were holding different posts. The aforesaid respondents Nos. 2 to 43 alleged that till April 1993, the respondent No.1 herein was managing the Inter State Bus Terminus in Delhi (herein referred to as ISBT). However, directions were issued by the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, whereby the management, control and supervision of ISBT, Delhi was transferred to the petitioners. Pursuant thereto Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the respondent No.1 herein (DDA) and the petitioner No.3 herein (General Manager, ISBT). According to the aforesaid Memorandum, the staff was to be transferred on deputation to Government of NCT for an initial period of one year, including Engineering, Finance And Administration staff and those, who, do not opt for permanent absorption in Delhi Administration, within one year, they may continue on deputation basis and would not be repatriated without mutual consent of DDA and the Government of NCT of Delhi. Accordingly, the services of respondent Nos. 2 to 43 were placed at the disposal of the petitioner No.3 herein on deputation basis. Since the respondents No.2 to 43 were not being repatriated, they made request to the petitioner that they were entitled to the deputation allowance till their absorption or repatriation back. Their representation was rejected. 3. It is clarified that none of the respondents had ever opted for absorption. Rather they had requested for their repatriation. Admittedly, not only respondent No.2 to 43, but the respondent No.1 also requested the petitioner No.3 herein to send back their staff. But the petitioner No.3 herein has failed to take any action on their request. Thus, the petitioners are neither paying the Deputation Allowance nor repatriating them back to their parent department. 4. Respondent Nos. 2 to 43 approached Tribunal by filing OA No. 2128/2002 and prayed that directions be issued to the petitioners to pay Deputation Allowance beyond the period of four years of service and to continue to pay the prescribed Deputation Allowance till they are absorbed permanently or repatriated. 4. Respondent Nos. 2 to 43 approached Tribunal by filing OA No. 2128/2002 and prayed that directions be issued to the petitioners to pay Deputation Allowance beyond the period of four years of service and to continue to pay the prescribed Deputation Allowance till they are absorbed permanently or repatriated. Further they prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the petitioner No.3 to repatriate them back to the DDA. The petitioner herein pleaded before the Tribunal that the staff of the DDA will not be repatriated from deputation without the mutual consent of both the parties, but as per the provision of the rules, the Government servant can be paid Deputation Allowance for a period of four years only, not thereafter. They can continue on deputation without payment of Deputation Allowance. However, the petitioners also made request to the Services Department, Government of India and other agencies too provide staff on deputation so that the present incumbents can be repatriated. 5. The short question before the Tribunal, arid now before us is: whether respondent Nos. 2 to 43 are entitled for Deputation Allowance beyond the period of four years? The petitioners herein relied upon the instructions of the Government as contained in FRSR, Appendix V of Swamys Fundamental Rules & SR. As per them, the rules prescribe the conditions of service of deputationist. These rules provide that the employee on deputation can be paid Deputation Allowance upto four years only, and beyond that, permission of DOPT etc. has to be obtained. Therefore, since the Deputation Allowance cannot be paid beyond four years; the petitioners herein cannot be compelled to pay Deputation Allowance beyond that period. 6. The Tribunal has observed that the petitioners cannot invoke the provisions of Appendix V FRSR restricting the payment on Deputation Allowance for four years only. It is because of the reason that in the present case, the respondent Nos 2 to 43 have not come on deputation under the tripartite agreement where their consent had to be taken. Rather these respondents had been working with Government of NCT under a special arrangement made as per the Memorandum of understanding between the respondent No. 1 and the petitioner No.3. The aforesaid Memorandum was signed on behalf of the DDA by Finance Member and on behalf of Delhi Government signed by Secretary (Transport). Rather these respondents had been working with Government of NCT under a special arrangement made as per the Memorandum of understanding between the respondent No. 1 and the petitioner No.3. The aforesaid Memorandum was signed on behalf of the DDA by Finance Member and on behalf of Delhi Government signed by Secretary (Transport). It is very necessary to go through the relevant clause of Memorandum of Understanding which is reproduced as under: "The present terms and conditions of employment of staff, including their pay and allowances and service conditions shall be fully protected and they will be paid prescribed deputation allowance till they are absorbed or repatriated." (emphasis supplied). 7. We have gone through the contents of the aforesaid Memorandum, according to which the services of the respondents herein were to be governed by this Memorandum of Understanding and not by FRSR. According to the aforesaid Memorandum, the petitioners were duty bound to pay Deputation Allowance till the respondents are absorbed or repatriated. Admittedly, the respondents were neither absorbed nor repatriated. 8. The respondent Nos. 2 to 43 herein have relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in 1979 (2) SLR 319 titled as C. Venkataswami & Others v. State Electricity Board wherein their Lordships held as under:" Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 16-Deputaton allowance-Foreign service on deputation beyond a period of five year-Orders of Government in G.O. Ms. No. 204 dated 21.05.1978 cannot be read as restricting the payment of deputation allowance to a period of five years-Foreign employer having utilized the services of Governments servant under obligation to pay salary and allowances including deputation allowances." 9. The respondents herein have also relied upon the judgment given by Punjab & Haryana High Court reported in 1984 (1) SLR 366 titled as Inderpal Khanna v. Accountant General Haryana, Chandigarh & Others, wherein it has been held as under:- "Constitution of India, Art. 16 Recovery of deputation allowance-Permissibility of-In the order of appointment of the petitioner on deputation mentioned-Respondent wrote a number of time to the Corporation to send back the petitioner when he was about to complete the four years with the Corporation. Corporation did not take a decision to send back the petitioner-Petitioner not in any way responsible for his overstay beyond four years with the Corporation-Entitled to the deputation allowances as long as he served with the Corporation-No justification for recovering the deputation allowance paid to the petitioner for the period beyond four years." Both these judgments squarely apply to the facts of the present case. 10. It is also undisputed that the respondent Nos. 2 to 43 were not responsible for over stay beyond four years in any manner. It is the petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 who were/are retaining them on deputation, despite the fact that the respondents Nos 2 to 43 were asking for repatriation. Even when DDA had also asked the petitioniers herein to repatriate their employees. In this way the Government of NCT of Delhi retained the respondents with them with the intention that there will be a legal obligation on DDA to pay them deputation allowance. 11. We are of the considered view that the respondents are entitled to Deputation Allowance beyond four years as per the memorandum of understanding signed between DDA & NCT of Delhi. We are of the considered view that FRSR are not applicable in the present case. Therefore, the direction in the judgment dated 13.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal is perfectly valid and this is not a case where we would like to interfere with the same under Article of 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly we dismiss the writ petition with costs of Rs. 2000/-, each payable to respondent Nos. 2 to 43. 12. We hereby direct the petitioner to comply with the order within a period of two months from today.