JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. All these writ petitions, being WP(C) No.3 of 2017 [Sri. Amrit Rudra Pal vs. TSICL & Ors.], WP(C) No.4 of 2017 [Sri. Tapan Gon vs. TSICL & Anr.], WP(C) No.5 of 2017 [Sri. Sambhu Sarkar vs. TSICL & Anr.] and WP(C) No.117 of 2017 [Smt. Gita Rani Das vs. TSICL & Anr.] are consolidated for disposal by a common judgment as in these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the respective office orders transferring them to an organization which is not within the administrative control of the Tripura Small Industries Corporation Limited and there had been no consent from the petitioners for such posting. 3. Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the Managing Director, Tripura Small Industries Corporation Limited does not have that authority to post the petitioners outside the organization and to a foreign establishment without due consent from the petitioners. 4. It is undisputed that all the petitioners have been appointed as the Group-D employee by the Memorandum No.F.469/MD/TSIC/(Part-I)/2000/2345-363 dated 15.12.2012. Thereafter, by the office orders as shown in the table below against the writ petitioners, they were transferred to the different foreign organizations which are also shown in the said table. Writ petition No. Name of the writ petitioner with designation Office order no. and date Transferred to 1 2 3 4 WP(C) No.3/2017 Sri Amrit Rudra Pal, P.C.N.G. No. TSIC/OA/C(I) /VolXXII/2014/117076, dated 19.10.2016 ITI, Bishramganj, Sepahijala, Tripura WP(C) No.4/2017 Sri Tapan Gon, Peon No.TSIC/OA/C(I) /VolXXII/2014/116269, dated 19.10.2016 ITI, Kamalpur, Dhalai, Tripura WP(C) No.5/2017 Sri Sambhu Sarkar, P.C.N.G. No.TSIC/OA/C(I) /VolXXII/2014/116269, dated 19.10.2016 ITI, Kamalpur, Dhalai, Tripura WP(C) No.117/2017 Smt. Gita Rani Das, Peon No.TSIC/OA/C(I) /VolXXII/2014/174756, dated 31.01.2017 Directorate of Social Audit, P.N. Complex, Gorkhabasti, Agartala 5. To support his contention Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has relied on a decision of the Apex Court reported in (1997) 8 SCC 372 [State of Punjab & Ors. v. Inder Singh & Ors.] where it has been enunciated as under: “18. The concept of "deputation" is well understood in service law and has a recognized meaning. “Deputation” has a different connotation in service law and the dictionary meaning of the word “deputation” is of no help. v. Inder Singh & Ors.] where it has been enunciated as under: “18. The concept of "deputation" is well understood in service law and has a recognized meaning. “Deputation” has a different connotation in service law and the dictionary meaning of the word “deputation” is of no help. In simple words “deputation” means service outside the cadre or outside the parent department. Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside his cadre, that is to say, to another department on a temporary basis. After the expiry period of deputation the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he has earned promotion in his parent department as per the Recruitment Rules. Whether the transfer is outside the normal field of deployment or not is decided by the authority who controls the service or post from which the employee is transferred. There can be no deputation without the consent of the person so deputed and he would, therefore, know his rights and privileges in the deputation post. The law on deputation and repatriation is quite settled as we have also seen in various judgments which we have referred to above. There is no escape for the respondents now to go back to their parent departments and working there as Constables or Head Constables as the case may be.” [Emphasis added] 6. Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel has submitted that these are not cases of deputation and as such there was no question of obtaining consent from the petitioners. These are mere transfers posting the petitioners to the organizations as stated in the table. He has stated that since the Tripura Small Industries Corporation Limited is suffering from serious financial deficit and the petitioners were assessed to be surplus in the present administrative structure of the Corporation, with consultation of the administrative Department [Department of Industries & Commerce], the Board of Directors adopted a resolution in order to lessen the financial burden by posting the petitioners to those organizations. According to Mr. Deb, since it is a Government undertaking those action cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. No interference may, therefore be drawn adverse to the said Corporation, since the transfer is an incidence of service and nobody can refuse when they are transferred to a post. 7. According to Mr. Deb, since it is a Government undertaking those action cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. No interference may, therefore be drawn adverse to the said Corporation, since the transfer is an incidence of service and nobody can refuse when they are transferred to a post. 7. Having appreciated the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Parties and scrutinized the records, this Court is of the view that though those impugned orders have been styled as the transfer order but in nature those are the orders of deputation and the petitioners have rightly contended that they cannot be transferred outside the Corporation where they have been appointed without their consent and as such all the impugned orders are set aside and quashed. 8. Before Parting with the records it is stated that the respondents-Corporation may only post the petitioners outside their organization only on obtaining their consent, not otherwise. 9. In terms of the above, the writ petitions are allowed and disposed of. There shall be no order as to cost.