JUDGMENT : 1. This LPA is directed against judgment dated 27th August, 2015, passed by Hon'ble Single Bench dismissing SWP 2264/2015. It is in this backdrop that this Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) is filed. The Appellants-writ petitioners called in question order No. 05-R&R of 2015 dated 10th August, 2015, passed by respondent No. 1. In terms of the said order, the Appellants -- writ petitioners have been repatriated to their parent Departments with immediate effect. 2. The facts, as projected in the impugned judgment, would show that vide order dated 04th March, 2014, passed by respondent No. 3, the Appellants -- writ petitioners were transferred and posted as Zonal Officers in the vicinity of Jammu city. Further claim of the Appellants-writ petitioners in the writ petition was that with the re-organization of Revenue Department and creation of new zones and for, effectively, carrying out the relief and rehabilitation measures for kashmiri migrants, they were adjusted in the Relief and Rehabilitation Department. They were adjusted as Zonal Officers/Camp Commandants in the new zones in the vicinity of Jammu city in terms of order dated 12th February, 2015. 3. Writ petition was filed on the ground that within the period of six months of their adjustment, the writ petitioners, in terms of impugned order dated 10th August, 2015, were repatriated to their parent Departments. 4. The writ Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, as already stated, dismissed the writ petition vide judgment dated 27th August, 2015. 5. Mr. Sunil Sethi, Senior Advocate, appearing for the Appellants-writ petitioners, in support of the Appeal, submitted that in terms of order No. Rev/MR/150/2014 dated 24th June, 2014, the Government has framed transfer policy for the employees posted in the Relief Organization and the Repatriation order- has been made in breach of the said transfer policy. Learned counsel submitted that annexure (A) to the aforesaid Government order provides that an employee, irrespective of status, who has stayed in the Relief Organization for more than ten years, shall be repatriated to his/her parent Department. Learned counsel submitted further that in terms of paragraph (2) of annexure (A) to the Government order, it is provided that no official shall be allowed to continuously work in the Relief Organization beyond five years and the employees, who have already completed stay of five years, shall be dealt with in terms of paragraph (1) of the said transfer policy. Learned counsel also referred to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case titled T.S.R. Subramanian and others v. Union of India and others decided on 31st October, 2013 and submitted that in view of law laid down by the Apex Court, the transfer policy of employees, posted in the Relief Organization and for extending other facilities to the migrants, has to be complied with by the respondents. Learned counsel also referred to the judgment of the learned Single Judge, reported in Sudarshan Kumar Mishra & Ors. v. State & Ors. 2011 (4) JKJ 232 [HC] and submitted that this case is governed by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Court in the aforesaid judgment, which has not been considered by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel also referred to the full bench judgment of this Court decided on 31st August, 2015, in which, reference, in a batch of writ petitions with lead case - SWP 1476/2014, was answered. The full bench in the aforesaid judgment, while answering the reference, held that the Government order No. 861-GAD of 2010 dated 28th July, 2010 is the guideline and same is not having a statutory force. When, in the writ Court judgment, reported in Sudarshan Kumar Mishra & Ors. v. State & Ors. 2011 (4) JKJ 232 [HC], it has been held that the aforesaid Government transfer policy constitutes part of rule 27 of Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1956. Learned counsel submitted that the important aspects, arising out of the aforesaid judgment, have not been considered. He further submitted that the judgment of the full bench would not affect the legal rights of the Appellants-writ petitioners and their premature repatriation to their parent Departments is not, in law, warranted, in the facts and circumstances of this case. 7. Though, we are, prima facie, satisfied that the full bench judgment dated 31st August, 2015 would require reconsideration but this is not the appropriate case, in which reference can be made for constitution of a larger bench for reconsideration of the aforesaid full bench judgment. 7. Though, we are, prima facie, satisfied that the full bench judgment dated 31st August, 2015 would require reconsideration but this is not the appropriate case, in which reference can be made for constitution of a larger bench for reconsideration of the aforesaid full bench judgment. We say so because though deputation and transfer are synonymous terms yet transfer of a member of service or class of a service is made to a post, which is borne on the cadre of such service or class, whereas, when an employee is send on deputation, he is sent out of his cadre and service to some other service and cadre. An employee on deputation may have a claim to remain posted on the post to which he has been deputed for the period, which is fixed in the order of deputation. Even such employee may not have an indefensible right to continue to remain posted outside his cadre for the period fixed in the order of deputation and, for valid administrative reasons and in the interest of administration, he can be repatriated at any time to his parent Department. 8. In view of annexure (A) to Government order dated 24th June, 2014, it cannot be said that the Appellants--writ petitioners are clothed with any vested right, in law, to continue to remain posted in the Relief Organization, in as much as, paragraph (2) thereof provides that an employee shall not be allowed to continue beyond five years in the Relief Organization, which would otherwise mean that though five years is an outer limit but that would not mean that an employee cannot be repatriated to his parent Department before completion of the period of five years. No minimum tenure of posting on deputation is fixed in terms of the aforesaid Government order. Reliance of the Appellants -- writ petitioners on the aforesaid Government order for their continuation in the respondent -- Organization, being not supported by law or by the aforesaid Government order itself, is held to be not conferring any right on the Appellants -- writ petitioners. For our above stated reasons, this Appeal is held to be merit-less and is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected IA's. Interim direction shall stand vacated.