Judgment : (Per LNR, J) This Writ Appeal is filed by the writ petitioner in W.P.No.23748 of 2002, feeling aggrieved by the order, dated 03.01.2014, passed by a learned Single Judge. Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant joined the service of A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited, Hyderabad, 2nd respondent herein, in the year 1978, as a Senior Assistant. As part of reforms, all the dairy establishments owned by the State were reorganized. The District units were made as Milk Purchasers Unions. The appellant was allotted to the Chittoor District Co-operative Union (for short ‘the Union”). At a later point of time, the Union was ordered to be liquidated by the Government. The employees, who are about 650, were given option to take voluntary retirement from service and 451 employees opted for VRS. The petitioner and about 140 others, however, did not intend to avail the benefit. As regards such employees, decision was taken to retrench them. Writ Petitions and other proceedings ensued in this behalf, and this Court issued certain directions. Acting in compliance with the direction issued by this Court, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.3, Animal Husbandry Dairy Development & Fisheries (Dairy.II) Department, dated 05.01.2007, making available a sum of Rs.7,97,48,067/- for payment to the employees, be it as VRS compensation, or retrenchment compensation, as the case may be. Complaining that he was not paid salaries from the year 2002 to 2006, the appellant filed W.P.No.23748 of 2002. The appellant states that in the year 2006, he has been deputed to work in the A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Society”). As a consequence of retrenchment in the Union, the deputation of the appellant in the Society was cancelled. Assailing the same, the appellant filed W.P.No.7196 of 2007. The plea of the appellant was that he is basically an employee of the 2nd respondent Federation and he was sent to the Union only on deputation. He pleaded that even his deputation to the Society was by the 2nd respondent Federation, and in that view of the matter, he was entitled to continue in service of the Society, till he attains the age of superannuation. It was also pleaded that he is entitled to be paid salaries from the year 2002 to 2006. The writ petitions were opposed, mainly by the 2nd respondent Federation. It was also pleaded that he is entitled to be paid salaries from the year 2002 to 2006. The writ petitions were opposed, mainly by the 2nd respondent Federation. It was pleaded that the appellant ceased to be an employee of the 2nd respondent Federation, with effect from 01.10.1988, and ever since then, he became a permanent employee of the Union. It was also urged that the Union went into liquidation, and when the appellant did not opt for VRS, his services were retrenched, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. The respondents have also pleaded that the deputation of the appellant to the Society was depended, upon his being continued in the parent organization, and once he was retrenched, he has no right to continue on deputation. Hence, the learned Single Judge dismissed both the writ petitions. Heard Sri M. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri M. Dilip Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, and the learned Government Pleader for Animal Husbandry, appearing for the respondents 1 and 3. The contentions that were urged before the learned Single Judge are repeated before us. It is, no doubt, true that the appellant was, initially, an employee in the 2nd respondent Federation as a Senior Assistant. However, he does not dispute the fact that initially, he was sent on deputation to the Union, and thereafter, he became a permanent employee of the Union, with effect from 01.10.1988. In case the appellant had any objection about his being sent to the Union, he ought to have raised an objection, at that time itself. The very fact that when option was given for VRS, the appellant has chosen not to avail it, discloses that he treated himself to be an employee of the Union, but wanted to continue in the service. Once the Union was liquidated, in accordance with law, the appellant cannot insist that he be continued in service, that too, as an employee of the 2nd respondent Federation. Therefore, the plea of the appellant that he continued to be the employee of the 2nd respondent Federation cannot be accepted. The 2nd limb of the grievance of the appellant is about the recall of the deputation to the Society. He does not dispute that he is not a permanent employee of the Society and he was sent to it, only on deputation. The 2nd limb of the grievance of the appellant is about the recall of the deputation to the Society. He does not dispute that he is not a permanent employee of the Society and he was sent to it, only on deputation. Though he made an attempt to convince this Court that the deputation was by the 2nd respondent Federation, the record discloses that the deputation, if at all, can be only from the Union. The District Collector was in-charge of the Union in the year 2000 and it was through the proceedings, dated 19.01.2000, that the appellant was sent on deputation to the Society. It is axiomatic that the services of an employee on deputation would be coextensive with his services in the parent organization. The agency, to which an employee was deputed, cannot continue him, once he ceases to be on the rolls of the parent organization. That is what exactly, has happened in the instant case. If the appellant had the grievance about the legality of the retrenchment, he has to work out his remedies, under the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. We do not find any basis to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, it is left open to the appellant to work out his remedies, if any, before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions filed in the writ appeal shall stand disposed of.