ORDER 1. The petitioner was appointed to the judicial ministerial service as an Examiner by order dated 10.06.1987 of the District Judge, Krishna District. He was posted at Vijayawada. As his wife was working in the Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences (for brevity, ‘the NIMS’), Hyderabad, he was interested in seeking appointment in the same organization. He submitted an application through the District Judge, Krishna, to the Director of the NIMS to consider his case for being appointed as a Senior Assistant. He was accordingly called for an interview to assess his suitability for the post of a Legal Assistant on 11.11.1989. He was appointed as a Legal Assistant by proceedings dated 11.11.1989 of the NIMS in the pay-scale of Rs.910-1625. The petitioner was thereupon relieved from the post of Examiner at Vijayawada, and reported for duty as a Legal Assistant at the NIMS on 18.11.1989. He was placed on the higher scale of Rs.1100-2050 with effect from 01.03.1990. 2. The NIMS issued proceedings dated 09.12.1991 regularizing the petitioner’s services in the post of Legal Assistant under Rule 16(2) of the Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences Service Rules. His probation was declared by proceedings dated 31.01.1992 under Rule 16(4) of the said Rules. In recognition of his contribution and outstanding meritorious work in the NIMS, he was conferred the best employee award on 15.08.1994. The petitioner was assigned the scale of Office Superintendent under orders dated 15.09.1994. As the post of Legal Assistant did not have any promotional avenues and as his contemporaries were promoted to the posts of Assistant Registrar/Assistant Financial Controller, the petitioner applied to the Director of the NIMS to consider his case for allowing the same scale as was extended to them. By proceedings dated 06.07.1999, the NIMS brought the petitioner’s pay-scale on par with that of Assistant Registrar/Assistant Financial Controller with effect from 01.07.1999. He was accordingly assigned the pay-scale of Rs.2000-3500. Upon revision of pay-scales in the NIMS, his pay was fixed in the scale of Rs.8000-13,500. 3. While so, the petitioner was served with the proceedings of ‘withdrawal and repatriation to his parent unit’ dated 19.10.2001 informing him that the Executive Board of the NIMS, in its meeting held on 16.10.2001, decided to relieve the petitioner from the NIMS so as to enable him to report for duty at his parent unit, i.e., the judicial department from where he was taken on deputation. As per the proceedings, this was done as his appointment was not in accordance with the Regulations and the statutory rules framed thereunder and as no sanctioned post of Legal Assistant existed in the cadre strength of the NIMS. He was accordingly directed to be relieved from the NIMS with immediate effect and asked to report to his parent unit. By separate proceedings dated 19.10.2001/22.09.2001, the NIMS revised the petitioner’s pay fixation and directed recovery of the excess amounts paid to him. These actions are subjected to challenge in this writ petition. 4. This Court, by order dated 09.11.2001, granted interim stay of the impugned proceedings dated 19.10.2001. 5. One of the specific grounds of challenge of the petitioner is that as against the existing 161 cadres in the NIMS, Recruitment Rules had been formulated only in respect of 16 cadres. The petitioner therefore contended that the post of Legal Assistant alone could not be singled out for discriminatory treatment on the ground that it did not exist in the sanctioned cadre strength. Various other grounds were also pressed into service in support of his challenge, which will be dealt with individually hereinafter. 6. In the counter filed on behalf of the NIMS, its Executive Registrar stated that the petitioner was provided an effective alternative remedy of preferring an appeal to the Governing Council of the NIMS under the Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1989 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1989’). On facts, he stated that under Regulation 49(v) of the Statutory Regulations framed under the Act of 1989, the NIMS could make appointments only by way of direct recruitment or through deputation from Government service. He pointed out that the procedure applicable in case of direct recruitment had not been followed in the case of the petitioner’s appointment and therefore, his entry into the NIMS was to be treated only as ‘on deputation’. He further stated that there was no provision for appointment by transfer as stated in the petitioner’s appointment order. He pointed out that the petitioner never offered his willingness to be absorbed in the service of the NIMS and the NIMS, in turn, never expressed its willingness to absorb him. He also pointed out that the petitioner, while holding the post of Examiner, was transferred on deputation as a Legal Assistant on his own application and that the nature of the posts was dissimilar. He also pointed out that the petitioner, while holding the post of Examiner, was transferred on deputation as a Legal Assistant on his own application and that the nature of the posts was dissimilar. He therefore contended that the petitioner’s claim that he was appointed on transfer could not be countenanced and was liable to be rejected. He denied the allegation that there were only 16 cadres for which Recruitment Rules had been formulated in the NIMS. Reference was also made to the proceedings dated 03.01.1990 whereby, the NIMS informed the petitioner that his pay and allowances were not drawn due to non-receipt of his last pay certificate from the judicial department. It was also mentioned in the said proceedings that the petitioner had joined duty as a Legal Assistant on deputation. Though the petitioner received these proceedings on 06.01.1990, he did not choose to challenge the same. The counter concluded with the statement that as the petitioner was not an employee of the NIMS and was only continuing on deputation, the NIMS was not required to comply with the principles of natural justice before repatriating him. 7. In a separate counter, the Director of the NIMS, the second respondent, stated that at the time of the inception of the NIMS there were only 2 types of employees – direct recruits and employees/officers on deputation from Government service. He stated that the petitioner’s appointment as a Legal Assistant in the NIMS was not preceded by any notification calling for applications from eligible candidates. He denied that he had interviewed the petitioner for such appointment on 11.11.1989. He stated that the continuation of the petitioner in the NIMS as a Legal Assistant was reviewed by the Executive Board on 16.10.2001 and it was resolved to relieve him from the NIMS and repatriate him to his parent department. This was done as the petitioner was continuing on deputation in the post of Legal Assistant which was non-existent in the cadre of the NIMS. Reference was also made to various alleged irregularities and lapses attributable to the petitioner in the discharge of his duties. With regard to the reduction of pay visited upon the petitioner, he stated that there was no necessity of complying with the principles of natural justice as the petitioner had fraudulently obtained the benefit of such pay revision. 8. Reference was also made to various alleged irregularities and lapses attributable to the petitioner in the discharge of his duties. With regard to the reduction of pay visited upon the petitioner, he stated that there was no necessity of complying with the principles of natural justice as the petitioner had fraudulently obtained the benefit of such pay revision. 8. In his reply to these counters, the petitioner maintained that a writ petition would lie before this Court as the remedy of an appeal under the NIMS General (Conditions of Service) Standing Orders, 1994 would be available only against an order of dismissal. Under Rule 15 of the Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences Employees (Control & Appeal) Rules, an appeal is provided to the Board if the decision is that of the Director, or to the Director if the decision is of any authority subordinate to him. The petitioner pointed out that no appeal would lie to the Governing Council of the NIMS as contended in the counter. Further, as there was a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice, the petitioner asserted that an alternative remedy, even if available, did not bar him from seeking judicial review by way of a writ petition. On merits, the petitioner countered the argument of the NIMS that he had entered its service on deputation and not as an appointee by transfer. The contention of the NIMS that there was no provision for making an appointment by transfer was denied by referring to S.O. No. 3(a)(ii) of the Standing Orders, 1994 which provided for appointment by transfer as one of the methods by which appointments could be made in the NIMS. He pointed out that a person on deputation would continue as such only for a maximum period of five years and not beyond. As he remained in the service of the NIMS since the year 1989, the petitioner asserted that the NIMS could not, at this late stage, claim that he was taken in service on deputation basis. He denied the allegation that he had fraudulently procured the benefit of pay revision, whereby he was placed on par with Assistant Registrars/Assistant Financial Controllers in so far as his pay-scale was concerned. He denied the allegation that he had fraudulently procured the benefit of pay revision, whereby he was placed on par with Assistant Registrars/Assistant Financial Controllers in so far as his pay-scale was concerned. As regards the proceedings dated 06.01.1990, wherein he was shown as a Legal Assistant on deputation, the petitioner pointed out that it was not necessary for him to challenge the same as he was regularized in service thereafter and his probation was also declared, which clearly indicated that he was treated as a regular member of the service in the NIMS. He alleged that the procedure prescribed for implementing the resolutions of the Executive Board had not been followed in his case. He also pointed out that the counters reflected that the action taken against him was punitive in nature but without taking recourse to any disciplinary proceedings and contended that the same was therefore illegal. 9. Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, drew the attention of the Court to the order of appointment dated 11.11.1989, whereby the petitioner entered the service of the NIMS. This order, to the extent relevant, reads as under: “Sri R. Manohar Babu now working as Examiner, II Addl. Dist. Judge Court, Vijayawada, is appointed on transfer as Legal Assistant, NIMS, Hyderabad, in the pay scale of 9101625. 2. The Dist. Judge, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, is requested to relieve him with directions to join duty in the NIMS, Hyderabad.” 10. The learned counsel pointed out that the NIMS General (Conditions of Service) Standing Orders, 1994, framed in exercise of the power conferred by Section 12 of the NIMS Act, 1989 read with Rule 14 of the NIMS Rule, 1989, provided that appointment to any service or subordinate service, class or category could be made through appointment by transfer. Though these regulations were framed long after the petitioner entered the service of the NIMS, the learned counsel pointed out that the contention in the counters that appointment could not be made in the services of the NIMS by transfer was palpably incorrect. He pointed out that his client’s appointment was therefore not inconsistent with the Regulations of the NIMS, which came into existence after his entry into its service. The learned counsel then drew the attention of the Court to the order dated 09.12.1991 whereby the petitioner’s services were regularized in the NIMS. He pointed out that his client’s appointment was therefore not inconsistent with the Regulations of the NIMS, which came into existence after his entry into its service. The learned counsel then drew the attention of the Court to the order dated 09.12.1991 whereby the petitioner’s services were regularized in the NIMS. This order reads as follows: “ORDER: Under Rule 16(2) of NIMS Service Rules the services of Sri R.Manohar Babu, Legal Assistant are regularized in the category of Legal Assistant and placed on probation for a period of two years on duty within a continuous period of three years from 18.11.1989.” 11. Thereafter, by proceedings dated 31.01.1992, the petitioner’s probation was successfully declared. These proceedings read as follows: “ORDER: Under the provisions of Rule 16(4) of NIMS Service Rules Sri R. Manohar Babu, L/A is declared to have completed the period of probation satisfactorily on the afternoon of 15.12.1991 after postponing (27) days leave availed during the period of probation.” 12. The learned counsel pointed out that these actions on the part of the NIMS clearly evidenced that the petitioner was inducted into regular service of the NIMS as per the rules then in force and he could therefore not be treated as a foreign employee, be it on deputation or by transfer from another organization. The learned counsel also pointed out the distinction between appointment by transfer and deputation. The relationship between the former employer and the employee is altogether severed in the case of an appointment by transfer while an employee on deputation would continue to hold a lien on his substantial post in the parent department. This clearly was not the case in so far as the petitioner was concerned as his probation in the NIMS was declared successfully under Rule 16(4) of the NIMS Service Rules, which would have had application only to the employees of the NIMS and not to foreign employees. 13. Reference in this regard was made to an unreported Judgment of this Court in DR. M. KUMARASWAMY REDDY v. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, A.P., HYDERABAD (Writ Petition No.4454 of 1996 dated 16.07.1996), which dealt with the case of a doctor in Government service who was appointed in Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupati, thereafter. The issue was whether he was appointed on deputation or was a regular employee of the said Institute. M. KUMARASWAMY REDDY v. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, A.P., HYDERABAD (Writ Petition No.4454 of 1996 dated 16.07.1996), which dealt with the case of a doctor in Government service who was appointed in Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupati, thereafter. The issue was whether he was appointed on deputation or was a regular employee of the said Institute. A learned Judge of this Court held him to be an employee of the Institute observing that the doctor was continued beyond three years in the said Institute and was not only placed on probation but was also granted promotions. This judgment was confirmed in Writ Appeal No.1521 of 1996. A copy of the order dated 09.07.1997 passed therein is placed on record and reflects that the learned Division Bench found on facts that the doctor had been substantially appointed in the service of Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences and his lien in Government service had obviously ceased as he was no longer an employee on deputation from the State Government. The Bench therefore held that there was no question of his being repatriated and the appeal was accordingly dismissed. 14. Smt. S. Nanda, learned standing counsel for the NIMS, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner’s entry in the service of the NIMS was not regular and it could therefore not be continued in violation of the rule of law. She asserted that the petitioner would have to be treated as an employee on deputation and he could thus be repatriated to the parent department as and when his services were not required. As the post occupied by the petitioner did not exist in the cadre strength of the NIMS, she sought to justify the action of the NIMS in relieving him and in repatriating him to the parent department. She pointed out that absorption of the employees who came to the NIMS at their request was governed by S.O.No.31(d) of the NIMS General (Conditions of Service) Standing Orders, 1994 and the petitioner’s regularization, not being in consonance with this standing order, could not be taken to be lawful and valid. 15. In his reply, Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that at the time the petitioner’s services were regularized and he was placed on probation, the NIMS General (Conditions of Service) Standing Orders, 1994 were not in force. 15. In his reply, Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that at the time the petitioner’s services were regularized and he was placed on probation, the NIMS General (Conditions of Service) Standing Orders, 1994 were not in force. The learned counsel pointed out that the orders placing the petitioner on probation and thereafter, declaring his successful probation, specifically referred to the same having been done in exercise of the powers conferred by the NIMS Service Rules existing at that point of time. The learned counsel therefore reiterated that the petitioner, though he was initially an employee in the judicial ministerial service, was appointed by transfer in the NIMS, regularized in its service thereafter and therefore ceased to be a foreign employee. 16. Another specific ground raised by the petitioner is that the procedural requirement prescribed under Regulation 27(c) of the First Regulations of the Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, framed vide G.O.Ms.No.403, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (E.2) Department, dated 24.06.1989, was not fulfilled while giving effect to the NIMS’ Executive Board’s resolution in his case. Regulation 27(c) speaks of recording of business and states as under: “(c) The proceedings of the meetings of the Executive Board shall be circulated to all members. If no objection is taken by any member who was present at the meeting to the correctness of the proceedings within seven days of the sending of the proceedings, they shall be deemed to be correct. If objection be taken within the time aforesaid, a letter shall be sent to the Director definitely specifying the points which require correction in the proceedings. The validity or otherwise of objections, if any, received from the members present at the meeting shall be decided by the Vice-President of the NIMS whose decision shall be final.” 17. In terms of this Regulation, the proceedings of the Executive Board were required to be circulated to all the members enabling them to raise objections within seven days from the date of such proceedings being sent to them. 18. In the present case, the meeting of the Executive Board was held on 16.10.2001 but action was taken pursuant thereto against the petitioner on 18.10.2001 itself. There was thus a clear violation of the above procedural norm. 18. In the present case, the meeting of the Executive Board was held on 16.10.2001 but action was taken pursuant thereto against the petitioner on 18.10.2001 itself. There was thus a clear violation of the above procedural norm. Taking note of this aspect, this Court dismissed the vacate stay petition filed by the NIMS and its Director, respondents 1 and 2, in WVMP No.3446 of 2001, and by order dated 04.01.2002, the interim stay of the proceedings granted earlier was made absolute. 19. It is the stand of the NIMS that the Executive Board of the NIMS met thereafter on 28.12.2001 and approved the draft minutes recorded on 22.10.2001. There was thus no approval of the minutes as on the date the petitioner was sought to be relieved under the impugned proceedings dated 19.10.2001 and recovery of excess payments was sought to be made. The impugned proceedings therefore suffer from an incurable procedural defect. 20. After the petitioner was reinstated in service, it appears that some disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against him but it is now reported that no action was taken against him ultimately. 21. Further, in so far as the petitioner’s pay fixation is concerned, by proceedings dated 17.12.2010, the NIMS re-fixed his pay in super-cession of all the earlier orders. One of the orders so superceded was the proceedings dated 19.10.2001 which are impugned in this writ petition. By way of the proceedings dated 17.12.2010, the petitioner was granted the benefit of past increments which were due to him and his pay was fixed accordingly. The Assistant Registrar, Claims Section of the NIMS, was requested to claim the pay and allowances accordingly and disburse the same to the petitioner. This action was stated to be with the approval of the Director of the NIMS. 22. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore stated that the petitioner’s challenge in so far as his pay revision under the impugned proceedings dated 19.10.2001/22.09.2001 and the recovery proposed thereunder no longer survived for consideration. Smt. S. Nanda, learned standing counsel, also did not touch upon this aspect and when specifically posed a query in this regard, she informed the Court that this issue did not survive for consideration in the light of the later proceedings dated 17.12.2010 superceding all the earlier proceedings, including those impugned in this writ petition. 23. Smt. S. Nanda, learned standing counsel, also did not touch upon this aspect and when specifically posed a query in this regard, she informed the Court that this issue did not survive for consideration in the light of the later proceedings dated 17.12.2010 superceding all the earlier proceedings, including those impugned in this writ petition. 23. The issue that would therefore survive for consideration is whether the petitioner is to be treated as on deputation in the NIMS, thereby making him liable for repatriation to the parent department, or whether he became a member of the service in the NIMS owing to its subsequent actions, after he was appointed in its service on transfer. 24. It is no doubt true that the post to which the petitioner was appointed, i.e., Legal Assistant, does not find mention in the cadres of the NIMS. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the same is the situation with not only the petitioner’s post but several others has not been seriously controverted in the counters or by the learned standing counsel. The specific contention of the petitioner that out of the 161 existing cadres in the NIMS rules have only been framed for 16 cadres remains unrebutted on facts. It is therefore clear that the NIMS is now seeking to take advantage of its own lapse in properly sanctioning and formulating its existing cadres of employees. This argument of the NIMS therefore fails. 25. The order of appointment dated 11.11.1989 clearly reflects that the petitioner was appointed by transfer from judicial ministerial service. The regulations that came to be framed thereafter by the NIMS provided for such method of recruitment. It is therefore not open to the NIMS to attack the method of appointment of the petitioner or his status in consequence thereof at this late stage by alleging that proper procedure was not followed. In any event, for an appointment by transfer, there would be no notification calling for applications from eligible candidates. 26. The petitioner’s entry into the service of the NIMS therefore cannot be said to be illegal. The actions of the NIMS thereafter, in placing him on probation and declaring his successful completion of probation, clearly manifest that the petitioner was treated as a regular employee of the NIMS. These actions were with the sanction of the NIMS’ rules as existing at that point of time. The actions of the NIMS thereafter, in placing him on probation and declaring his successful completion of probation, clearly manifest that the petitioner was treated as a regular employee of the NIMS. These actions were with the sanction of the NIMS’ rules as existing at that point of time. Unfortunately, these rules have not been placed on record but reference thereto in the relevant proceedings cannot be ignored. The learned standing counsel when faced with these aspects is without an answer and is unable to justify as to how an employee on deputation could have been granted such benefits by the borrowing department. 27. Further, Regulation 40 of the NIMS General (Conditions of Service) Standing Order, 1994 states that the period of deputation of any employee to the NIMS from a Government Department or University or Organization shall be limited to a maximum period of five years. There is no response from the NIMS as to how and why the petitioner was continued in its service far in excess of this period, if the NIMS treated him as on deputation. 28. Reference in this regard may also be made to RAM PRAKASH MAKKAR v. STATE OF HARYANA (1992) 4 SCC 725 ).The observations of the Supreme Court in the said case are of relevance: “10. The main question in this appeal is whether the appellant was appointed by transfer as an Assistant in the Directorate or whether it was a mere case of deputation. We have set out hereinbefore the order of his appointment in the Directorate. The order has to be read as a whole. It says that the appellant is “appointed on transfer basis” as an Assistant in the Directorate. It also says that his appointment is purely temporary and that he can be reverted to his parent department as and when his services are not required. The order further says that the appellant shall be on probation for one year and that his lien in the Civil Secretariat Service will remain until he is confirmed in the Directorate. Now what do these three features read together mean? The Division Bench has laid emphasis upon the second feature, ignoring the first and the third. With respect we are unable to agree with its view. Now what do these three features read together mean? The Division Bench has laid emphasis upon the second feature, ignoring the first and the third. With respect we are unable to agree with its view. The fact that it is termed as an appointment on transfer basis coupled with the fact that his probation is commenced shows that it was a case of appointment by transfer and not one of deputation. Indeed, the order expressly contemplates his confirmation in Directorate. It is true that the order does recite that his appointment is purely temporary and he is liable to be reverted back to his parent department at any time. But this clause must be read along with other recitals in the order and if so read, it must be understood as operative during the period of his probation only. Once his probation was declared to have been satisfactorily completed and - particularly after he was also promoted as Personal Assistant in the Department, and his probation commenced and declared in such post also - it appears rather odd to say that he was only on deputation in the Directorate. ………” 29. In the light of this settled legal position, it is clear that the petitioner cannot be treated as being on deputation to the NIMS. 30. Further, there is no evidence of any correspondence between the NIMS and the judicial department concerning the petitioner, which would not have been the case had the petitioner been only deputed to the NIMS. The petitioner must therefore be treated as a regular employee of the NIMS for all purposes. 31. The judgment of this Court in P.RADHAKRISHNA v. STATE OF A.P. ( AIR 1968 AP 350 ), relied upon by the learned standing counsel for the NIMS, has no application whatsoever to the facts of the present case and this Court fails to understand as to why the same is being pressed into service. 32. 31. The judgment of this Court in P.RADHAKRISHNA v. STATE OF A.P. ( AIR 1968 AP 350 ), relied upon by the learned standing counsel for the NIMS, has no application whatsoever to the facts of the present case and this Court fails to understand as to why the same is being pressed into service. 32. The observations of the Supreme Court in SWAPAN KUMAR CHOUDHARY v. TAPAS CHAKRAVORTY (1995) 4 SCC 478 ), to the effect that it would not be open to the Court to lay down the conditions of service of Government employees, which either the State Legislature in exercise of power under Article 309 of the Constitution or the State Government in exercise of power under the proviso to that Article could do, are of no avail to the NIMS in the present case as this Court is not venturing to lay down the conditions of the petitioner’s service. The actions of the NIMS after the petitioner was appointed on transfer in its service must be given their logical consequence - that the petitioner was treated as its regular employee. This Court is therefore merely giving effect to these actions on the part of the NIMS and no more. 33. The ratio laid down in M.P. STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD. v. S.C. PANDEY (2006) 2 SCC 716 )also does not further the case of the NIMS. That was a case where the Supreme Court observed that merely because an employee completed 240 days of continuous service, the same by itself would not confer any legal right upon the employee to be regularized in service. In the present case, it is to be noticed that the NIMS itself regularized the services of the petitioner and placed him on probation as long back as on 09.12.1991. This Court is merely taking judicial notice of the same and giving it due effect. 34. Reliance placed by the learned standing counsel on STATE OF M.P. v. LALIT KUMAR VERMA (2007) 1 SCC 575) is equally futile. That was a case where the Court was dealing with the distinction between irregular and illegal appointments. In the present case, at the time the petitioner entered its service, the NIMS was governed by its Service Rules. Thereafter, the Regulations, which were framed under the Act of 1989, provided for the method of recruitment through appointment by transfer. That was a case where the Court was dealing with the distinction between irregular and illegal appointments. In the present case, at the time the petitioner entered its service, the NIMS was governed by its Service Rules. Thereafter, the Regulations, which were framed under the Act of 1989, provided for the method of recruitment through appointment by transfer. The petitioner’s entry into the MIMS’ service through appointment by transfer is not shown to be in violation of these Rules or Regulations and therefore cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to procedure. 35. Viewed thus, the petitioner became an employee of the NIMS, if not at the time of his appointment, at least from the date he was regularized in its service and placed on probation. The NIMS therefore cannot turn back the clock at this late stage and seek to wipe out the effect of its actions which attained finality long ago. Ergo, the petitioner cannot be treated as an employee on deputation and the action of the NIMS in attempting to do so and repatriating him to his so called parent department is wholly without legal and factual foundation. 36. The Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 19.10.2001 and 19.10.2001/20.09.2001, whereby the NIMS not only endeavoured to relieve and repatriate the petitioner but also revised his pay and sought to recover the excess payments made to him. The petitioner shall be treated as a regular employee of the NIMS for all purposes. Pending WPMPs, if any, shall stand dismissed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.