JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. Through this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.11.2015, by means of which, claim petition of the petitioner/claimant was disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal while disposing the claim petition, in Para No.8, 9 and 10 of the Judgement observed as under: - "8. Learned counsel for the applicant, during the course of hearing, stressed that the post is still vacant. The respondents have once-again advertised for filling up the post of Dispatch Rider on deputation vide their notice dated 30.09.2015 for various posts including that of Dispatch Rider on which the applicant can forward. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the pleadings available on record. 10. The facts of the case, as borne out, from the records are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute from the citations of the parties that a deputationist does not get any absolute right for his absorption. Further, in the case of absorption consequent upon deputation, three ingredients must be there at the time of absorption: (i) willingness of the individual, (ii) No objection from the parent department, and (iii) consent of the borrowing department. It is stated that in the instant case, the willingness of the individual was there, but the No Objection Certificate from the parent department was not received for more than two months. It is quite clear that 'No Objection Certificate' from parent department for his permanent absorption was received on 25.10.2013 whereas the vacancy was notified on 9.10.2013. There is no illegality in not processing the absorption prayer in absence of No Objection Certificate from his parent department. On completion of 4th year deputation, the applicant was repatriated to his parent department as the approval for grant of 5th year deputation could not obtain before expiry of 4th year deputation. No-doubt, an applicant has a right to be considered for his absorption, but consideration of the applicant would be feasible when the applicant continues to be on deputation and he is in the roll of borrowing department. When the applicant is not on the roll of borrowing department and he has already been repatriated to his parent department, how his case for consideration for absorption can be considered? When the applicant is not on the roll of borrowing department and he has already been repatriated to his parent department, how his case for consideration for absorption can be considered? Be that as it may, as the respondents have already advertised once again for taking a suitable person on deputation on the post of Dispatch Rider by their notification dated 30.9.2015, the applicant is free to apply for the same. In the event of his selection, he would be free to apply for absorption under the relevant rules." 4. We are in full agreement of the finding recorded by the Central Administrative Tribunal and we find that the parent department was not willing to relieve the petitioner, therefore, one of the requirement as was existing could not be fulfilled, hence the claim for regularization of the petitioner does not arise, neither the petitioner can claim any benefit on the basis of Rule 5 of the Ministry of Defence, Armed Forces Tribunal, Group 'C' posts (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules 2013. 5. The petition is devoid of merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.