JUDGMENT : All these petitions being WP(C). No. 676 of 2015 [Sebabrata Bhattacharjee v. State of Tripura & Ors.], WP(C). No. 677 of 2015 [Nupur Debbarma v. State of Tripura & Ors.], WP(C). No. 678 of 2015 [Swapan Bhowmik v. State of Tripura & Ors.], WP(C). No. 679 of 2015 [Usha Rai Jamatiav. State of Tripura & Ors.], WP(C). No. 680 of 2015 [Ratan Deb v. State of Tripura & Ors.], WP(C). No. 681 of 2015 [Gour Pada Chanda v. State of Tripura & Ors.], WP(C). No. 682 of 2015 [Amlan Das v. State of Tripura & Ors.], WP(C). No. 683 of 2015 [Manik Bhowmik v. State of Tripura & Ors.], WP(C). No. 684 of 2015 [Dinesh Debbarma v. State of Tripura & Ors.], WP(C). No. 685 of 2015 [Annapurna Debbarma v. State of Tripura & Ors.], WP(C). No. 686 of 2015 [Sunil Debbarma v. State of Tripura & Ors.], WP(C). No. 687 of 2015 [Ramani Debnath v. State of Tripura & Ors.], WP(C). No. 688 of 2015 [Pijush Kanti Debnath v. State of Tripura & Ors.], WP(C). No. 689 of 2015 [Narayan Ch. Das v. State of Tripura & Ors.] and WP(C). No. 690 of 2015 [Haradhan Dutta v. State of Tripura & Ors.] are clustered for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as a similar controversy and a common question of law have waded through all the writ petitions. 2. Heard Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners as well as Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents No. 14 and Mr. K.K. Pal, learned counsel and Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5. 3. The facts are mostly admitted in these writ petitions. The writ petitioners are working in the Public Sector Undertakings, namely [PSUs], Tripura Handloom and Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd, TIDC Ltd., the premerged Tripura Apex Weaver’s Cooperative Society Ltd, in the posts falling in the category of Group-C and Group-D. By the communication under No. F.9(4)FIN(PAC)/94 dated 17.03.2001, it has been informed to the Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Industries and Commerce Department that the State Government had set up a Directorate of Audit under the Administrative Control of the Finance Department. It had also been decided that the various ministerial staff of the Audit Directorate will be filled up from amongst the surplus staffs of various PSUs. It had also been decided that the various ministerial staff of the Audit Directorate will be filled up from amongst the surplus staffs of various PSUs. Thus, the Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Industries and Commerce Department was requested to sponsor names of the suitable candidates from amongst the surplus staffs of those PSUs under the administrative control of the Industries and Commerce Department for manning the posts as catalogued bellow:- a. LDC - 4 posts b. UDC - 2 posts c. Head Clerk - 2 posts d. Office Superintendent - 1 post e. GrD - 8 posts 4. Managing Directors of the PSUs viz TIDC/TTDC/TJML/TSIC/THHDC/TAWCS were informed by the communication dated 22.03.2001 [Annexure 2 to the writ petition] accordingly. The Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Department of Industries and Commerce by his communication dated 18.04.2001 [Annexure 3 to the writ petition] had apprised further as under:- “2. Meanwhile, it is observed that all the PSUs have sponsored their staffs for posting to the Audit Directorate. Now, it is to further inform you that, in case, a particular person in selected for posting in the Audit Directorate, there should be no recruitment after the said person is left and the post being hold by that person will be abolished.” 5. Thereafter, by interview, in terms of the communication under number F.9 (4)FIN(PAC)/94 dated 18.09.2001 [Annexure 4 to the writ petition], the persons for such posting in the Directorate of Audit was selected for deputation. There is no dispute that all the writ petitioners, in this batch of writ petitions, were found suitable and they are selected for posting under deputation. There is no blemish alleged against the petitioners. 6. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has straightway referred to the note No. 8, [part of the Annexure 13], where the Secretary to the Finance Department has recorded that total 7 LDCs and 8 GroupD staff had to be taken on deputation from various PSUs/Corporations under I&C Department. What has been further brought on record by the letter of the Secretary of Industries and Commerce is that the posts held by these 15 persons have been abolished in the respective PSUs/Corporations. What has been further brought on record by the letter of the Secretary of Industries and Commerce is that the posts held by these 15 persons have been abolished in the respective PSUs/Corporations. Thus, in the given situation, it is required that all these 15 persons be absorbed against the vacant posts of Audit Directorate, if approved, as the Secretary Finance Department has mentioned in this said note No. 8, as available with the records. Thus, he has urged to direct the Audit Department for completing the necessary formalities for absorption of all these 15 persons. 7. The petitioners in this batch of the writ petitions belong to that group of 15 persons and they are working on deputation for more than 15 years now and their services have not been absorbed to their serious detriment. 8. The petitioner made several representations for their absorption but without any positive result as yet. The emerged circumstances have persuaded the petitioners to approach this Court by means of these writ petitions where the reliefs inter alia, have been prayed as noted below:- “Issue writ in the nature of mandamus calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be absorbed in the Audit Directorate, under the Finance Department, Government of Tripura, from his joining therein.” 9. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel has submitted that the normal tenure of deputation is 3 years and the progressive arrangement that the State has made for absorption of the surplus employees in varies PSUs even though is laudable, but the petitioners have not been brought in the regular establishment. 10. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel has referred and relied on a decision of the Patna High Court in Bihar State Govt. Emp. Association v. The State of Bihar & Amp; Ors, [judgment and order dated 06.04.2011 in CWJC No. 10016 of 2007] where, almost in an identical circumstance, Patna High Court has directed the State of Bihar as under:- “these employees will be governed by the same service conditions/rules, which is applicable in case of Government employees. They will also be entitled for same benefit and relief, which is available to a State Government employee. They were also not allowed the deputation allowance. They will also be entitled for same benefit and relief, which is available to a State Government employee. They were also not allowed the deputation allowance. These Annexures are sufficient to show that the word "Deputation" used in Annexure1 or Annexure 5 and 6 is not simple "Deputation", but it was deputation with a clear stipulation that their services will be absorbed. The Respondents themselves have absorbed service of similarly situated employees as per Annexure 7 series and Annexure 8. Now, they cannot deny same benefit to the petitioners, who have worked for such a long time with legitimate expectation of absorption. Thereafter, Patna High Court issued the following direction on the State of Bihar:- “….all these Letter Patent Appeals were allowed with a direction to the Respondents to absorb their services, permanently in the Department, they were working on deputation, subject to this condition that they were brought on deputation, prior to cut off date of 16.11.1999. The State Government preferred SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the orders passed in all these LPAs and the same was dismissed.” 11. Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned G.A. as well as Mr. K. K. Pal, learned counsel and Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have submitted that absorption is not a matter of right but absorption can be made in the administrative exigencies. However, the State Government has been following a equitions policy so that the petitioners do not suffer any inconvenience or insecurity in any manner for their posting in the Directorate of Audit by virtue of that selection. 12. Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned G.A. has clearly stated that what has been observed in the note No. 8 of the Finance Secretary is not the correct position of fact. The posts in which the petitioners were appointed and serving in the PSUs are still in existence and those would only be abolished on petitioners’ absorption in the Directorate of Audit. 13. The submission of Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned G.A. is not obscure inasmuch as since the petitioners have not been absorbed in the Directorate of Audit, their posted in the parent organization could not be abolished. 14. It is apparent from the said note No. 8 that the respondents have already taken steps to absorb the petitioners. 13. The submission of Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned G.A. is not obscure inasmuch as since the petitioners have not been absorbed in the Directorate of Audit, their posted in the parent organization could not be abolished. 14. It is apparent from the said note No. 8 that the respondents have already taken steps to absorb the petitioners. In view of this, this Court is inclined to direct the respondents particularly the respondents No. 14 to complete the absorption of the petitioners as the logical end of this process that has been taken by the State within 31.03.2017. While absorbing, the petitioner shall be given protection of their past service so far their pension and other retiral benefits are concerned. 15. Needless to say that as per the policy, when the petitioner will be absorbed in the regular post of the Directorate of Audit, the post they had vacated in the parent organization shall stand abolished. With this observation and direction, this writ petition, stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.