JUDGMENT : Asha Arora, J. 1. The writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 was appointed as a junior clerk in Basumati Corporation Limited by a letter dated June 30, 1994 issued by the Managing Director of the said Corporation. The petitioner's initial appointment to the aforesaid post was at Siliguri wherefrom she was transferred to Calcutta Head Office of the Corporation vide order dated July 21, 1994. The petitioner was working in the said post since her appointment on compassionate ground pursuant to the death of her husband who was an employee of the Corporation. The Principal Secretary, Information and Cultural Affairs Department, Government of West Bengal issued the impugned order of transfer dated September 29, 2014 for placement of the service of the petitioner at the disposal of Information and Cultural Affairs department for further deployment according to the necessity of the department. The Managing Director of the Corporation issued the impugned release order dated October 9, 2014 directing the petitioner to join the Information and Cultural Affairs department at Nabanna and it was further mentioned in the said order that the petitioner will draw her salary from her original place of posting, that is, Basumati Corporation Limited. 2. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP No. 30095(W) of 2014 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge by an order dated December 5, 2016, the relevant portion of which is reproduced hereinbelow:- "Considering the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and after meticulously perusing the records I find the petitioner's initial appointment was under Basumati Corporation Ltd. and the petitioner was once on deputation taken to the Siliguri establishment of the said Basumati Corporation on consent and thereafter petitioner was again taken back to the Kolkata office of Basumati Corporation Ltd. It is also evident from the standing orders under Clause 7 that service of any workman is liable to be transferred from one post to another or from one department to another or from one shift to another. Therefore, such being the service condition petitioner cannot object against any transfer order. But in the present case petitioner was taken on deputation from his parent department i.e. Basumati Corporation Ltd. to a completely separate department/establishment namely Information and Cultural Affairs department without obtaining any consent from her. Therefore, such being the service condition petitioner cannot object against any transfer order. But in the present case petitioner was taken on deputation from his parent department i.e. Basumati Corporation Ltd. to a completely separate department/establishment namely Information and Cultural Affairs department without obtaining any consent from her. I cannot also ignore the fact that this order of deputation cannot be treated under Clause 7 of the standing orders as transfer order. Transfer means the employee is liable to be transferred from one post to another or from one department to another or from one shift to another. But the impugned order of deputation cannot be termed as transfer order. It is squarely falling under deputation. Deputation under service jurisprudence means service outside the cadre or outside the parent department on a temporary basis and after expiry of the deputation period the employee has to go back to his/her parent department. A deputationist cannot claim any promotion on the deputation post in the said department or absorption under that department, and the employee's lien lies with the parent department. Therefore, before sending any employee on deputation, taking consent from the said employee is mandatory and without obtaining any consent from the said employee no one can send any employee on deputation to some other department. But in the present case no consent has been obtained by the authority from the petitioner. Since the impugned orders passed without obtaining any consent of the petitioner, therefore, these impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law. I also cannot ignore the fact that with the petitioner one Ansuman Sarkar was also sent on deputation to the Information and Cultural Affairs department and against that he also filed a writ petition but since the said Ansuman Sarkar has withdrawn the writ petition, therefore, he was taken back to his parent department. In my considered view Government cannot compel any employee to accept any order which is beyond the scope of existing standing orders. It is evident from the record that there are 115 (approx.) employees working in the said corporation but only the petitioner has been taken on a pick and choose manner by the impugned orders to work on deputation under Information and Cultural Affairs Department. It is evident from the record that there are 115 (approx.) employees working in the said corporation but only the petitioner has been taken on a pick and choose manner by the impugned orders to work on deputation under Information and Cultural Affairs Department. Such action of the authority is wholly illegal, arbitrary, vindictive and completely contrary to service jurisprudence as well as very much against the Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. In the light of the above discussions and the decisions cited above by Mr. Chakraborty (Sri Ranjit Basu case, Susmriti Das and Others case, State of Punjab & Others case and Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. case & Ratilal B. Soni case (supra) I am of the considered view that the impugned order dated 29th September, 2014 issued by the Principal Secretary of Information and Cultural Affairs Department cannot be sustained as well as the following release order dated 9th October, 2014 issued by the Managing Director Basumati Corporation Ltd. also is not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 29th September, 2014 issued by the Principal Secretary of Information and Cultural Affairs Department and 9th October, 2014 issued by the Managing Director Basumati Corporation Ltd. are hereby quashed and set aside. I direct the Basumati Corporation Ltd. to immediately allow the petitioner to resume her service at the said corporation. This writ petition is allowed without any order as to costs." 3. The appellants/respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have challenged in this intra court appeal the legality and propriety of the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation/appellants strenuously argued that the impugned order of transfer dated September 29, 2014 and the release order dated October 9, 2014 have been issued for giving effect to a particular scheme of the Government being the "scheme for Utilisation of persons employed under Local Fund administered or not administered by the Government of West Bengal or in any Company, Corporation, Undertaking, Statutory Body, Board etc. which is wholly or partially owned or controlled by the Government of West Bengal or by any Body which is funded wholly or partially by the Government of West Bengal for deployment or detailment in any Government Offices or in any other local fund authority or any such entity" as introduced vide Government Notification No. 3161-F(P) dated June 17, 2014 and modified by Government Notification No. 3316-F(P) dated June 21, 2016 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Finance Department. It has been argued that the said scheme does not make it obligatory for the employer to take prior consent of the employee before making such detailment or deployment. Learned counsel for the appellants elucidated that Basumati Corporation is under the Information and Cultural Affairs department of the Government of West Bengal and the petitioner has been relocated on deputation in the Information and Cultural Affairs department of the Government of West Bengal in accordance with the scheme which does not necessitate seeking prior consent of the employee before such deputation. To buttress his submission, learned counsel for the appellants pressed into service Clause 5 of the Scheme relating to "Detailment or deployment of person employed in Company, Corporation, Undertaking etc." 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner countered that the petitioner cannot be transferred to another department without her consent since the service conditions of employees are governed by the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Paragraph 7 of the Standing Orders provides that the service of any workman is liable to be transferred from one post to another or from one department to another or from one shift to another but in the instant case the Principal Secretary issued the impugned order of transfer directing the petitioner to be placed at the disposal of the Information and Cultural Affairs department which is outside the Corporation. It has also been argued that the Managing Director or the Manager of the Corporation is the appointing authority of the petitioner but the impugned order of transfer has been issued by the Principal Secretary, Information and Cultural Affairs Department of the Government of West Bengal. It has also been argued that the Managing Director or the Manager of the Corporation is the appointing authority of the petitioner but the impugned order of transfer has been issued by the Principal Secretary, Information and Cultural Affairs Department of the Government of West Bengal. Learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner sought to impress upon us that the transfer order is arbitrary and whimsical in view of the fact that by the aforesaid impugned order another employee namely, Angshuman Sarkar who was directed to join the Information and Cultural Affairs department, challenged the order in a writ petition which was subsequently withdrawn by him. Since the said employee withdrew his writ petition, he was allowed to join Basumati Corporation. Placing reliance upon the decision reported in 2017 (6) SCC 801 (paragraph 85) in the case of T.P. Senkumar, IPS v. Union of India and Others, learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner canvassed that the impugned order of transfer is not a reasoned one. It is submitted that absence of reasons in the order of transfer cannot be supplemented by reasons through an affidavit. 6. Before proceeding to deal with the issue giving rise to the instant appeal, it would be appropriate to refer to the copy of the Calcutta Gazette dated August 9, 1974 containing the relevant Government Notification No. 2841-CSI dated August 9, 1974 which reads as follows:- "No. 2841-C.S.I. - 9th August 1974. - In exercise of the power conferred by clause (a) of section 2, read with section 3 of the Basumati Private Limited (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 1974 (Act XXXV of 1974), the Governor is pleased hereby to appoint the ninth day of August, 1974 as the date on and from which the Undertaking of the Basumati Private Limited shall, by virtue of the said Act, stand transferred to, and vest in, the State Government free from all trusts, liabilities and encumbrances." 7. In the context of the above it is pertinent to refer to clause 5 of the Government Scheme which came into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette dated June 24, 2014 vide Government Notification No. 3161-F(P) dated June 17, 2014. The relevant clause 5 reads as follows:- "5. Detailment or deployment of person employed in Company, Corporation, Undertaking etc. - (1) a person employed in any Company, Corporation, Undertaking, Statutory Body, Board etc. The relevant clause 5 reads as follows:- "5. Detailment or deployment of person employed in Company, Corporation, Undertaking etc. - (1) a person employed in any Company, Corporation, Undertaking, Statutory Body, Board etc. wholly or partially owned or controlled by the Government of West Bengal, or by any Body which is funded wholly or partially by the Government of West Bengal, may, if the Government of West Bengal in consultation with the concerned authority of such entity, deems fit and proper to do so, utilize his/her service, by way of deployment or detailment in any Government offices or in any other Company, Corporation, Undertaking Statutory Body, Board etc. and during such deployment or detailment all the terms and conditions of service shall remain with such entity. (2) The power to draw pay and allowances, to report on performance and to sanction leave shall be exercised by the concerned head of Government office or the entity where he is deployed or detailed provided no service condition shall be in any way altered to the disadvantage of such person." 8. The corporation being under the control of the Information and Cultural Affairs department, it is the prerogative of the controlling authority to transfer or relocate any employee of the Corporation for further deployment in view of administrative exigencies. There is, therefore, no substance in the argument that the Principal Secretary, Information and Cultural Affairs department of the Government of West Bengal had no authority to issue the impugned order of transfer. 9. To effectively adjudicate the matter before us it would be beneficial to refer to the impugned transfer order dated September 29, 2014 which is reproduced herein below: "In view of shortage of manpower in the offices under administrative control of the I&CA Department, it has been imperative to relocate some staff from some organizations under the control of this department. This is to be carried out on deputation basis and the staff concerned will draw their salary from their original place of posting. Accordingly, the services of the following staff of Basumati Corporation Limited are to be placed at the disposal of I&CA Department immediately for further deployment according to the necessity of the Department. This is to be carried out on deputation basis and the staff concerned will draw their salary from their original place of posting. Accordingly, the services of the following staff of Basumati Corporation Limited are to be placed at the disposal of I&CA Department immediately for further deployment according to the necessity of the Department. Name of the staff Designation Office of posting Smt. Kaberi Maitra Office Clerk Basumati Corporation Limited Sri Angshuman Sarkar Office Clerk Basumati Corporation Limited Managing Director, Basumati Corporation Limited, is to release the above staff immediately with the direction to report at the I&CA Deptt. at Nabanna''. This order will remain in force until further order." 10. Pursuant to the aforesaid impugned order of transfer the Managing Director of the corporation issued the following release order dated October 9, 2014:- "Pursuant to the order of the Principal Secretary, I&CA Department, bearing No. 1049/Pr.S/ICA dated 29.09.2014 the following staff of Basumati Corpn. Ltd. are hereby released w.e.f. 09.10.2014 to join I&CA Deptt. at 'Nabanna', 325, Sarat Chatterjee Road, Howrah - 711 102 for further deployment according to the necessity of the Department. Name of the staff Designation Smt. Kaberi Maitra Office Clerk Sri Angshuman Sarkar Office Clerk This arrangement is made on deputation basis and the staff concerned will draw their salary from their original place of posting i.e. Basumati Corpn. Ltd." 11. The reason for the transfer has clearly been indicated in the impugned order dated September 29, 2014 which states that "in view of shortage of man power in the offices under administrative control of the Information and Cultural Affairs Department, it has been imperative to relocate some staff from some organizations under the control of this department." The argument that the impugned transfer order does not disclose any reason is therefore devoid of merit. T.P. Senkumar's case (supra) referred by the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner is clearly distinguishable on facts from the present case. In the decision relied upon, the appellant, an outstanding officer in the Police Service, in view of his meritorious record and service, was appointed as the Director General of Police and Head of Police Force (the State Police Chief) in terms of Section 18, Kerala Police Act, 2011 on 22-5-2015. Section 97 of the Act mandates that the State Government shall ensure a minimum tenure of two years for the State Police Chief. Section 97 of the Act mandates that the State Government shall ensure a minimum tenure of two years for the State Police Chief. However, the appellant's tenure was cut short and he was transferred as Chairman and Managing Director of Kerala Police Housing and Construction Corporation Ltd. on State deputation basis by an order dated 1-6-2016. The appellant challenged the order dated 1-6-2016 by filing petition in the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which was dismissed. He then filed writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed. Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held as follows: "The removal or displacement or transfer of an officer from a sensitive tenure post requires serious consideration and good reasons that can be tested so that officer is not dealt with as a pawn in a game. Unfortunately, the somewhat exacting standards are absent in the present case and the appellant was displaced summarily and without reasonable cause." The decision referred is in no way apposite for the purpose of our present case at hand wherein the transfer order was issued to give effect to the scheme of the Government published in the Kolkata Gazette dated June 24, 2014 a copy of which has been brought on record by the appellants which shows publication of the said scheme vide Government Notification No. 3161-F(P) dated June 17, 2014 the relevant portion of which is reproduced hereinbelow:- "No. 3161-F(P) - 17th June 2014. - Whereas, it has been made to appear to the Governor that there are several entities, namely, Companies, Corporations, Undertakings, Statutory Bodies, Boards, etc. - Whereas, it has been made to appear to the Governor that there are several entities, namely, Companies, Corporations, Undertakings, Statutory Bodies, Boards, etc. wholly or partially owned or controlled by the Government of West Bengal or by any Body which is funded wholly or partially by the Government of West Bengal and such Companies, Corporations, Undertakings, Statutory Bodies, Boards, etc., that need to be restructured with a view to ensure the optimal use of public funds and the most productive and effective usage of available manpower; And whereas, it also appears that the most effective and productive use of such manpower is through deployment or detailment in Government offices or in any other similar entities and productively and fully use their services through retraining and re-skilling; And whereas, it has been further made to appear to the Governor that the terms and conditions of service for deployment or detailment of person employed under the local fund, whether administered by the Government of West Bengal or not, in Government offices or in any other local fund authority, are required to be specified separately since employees of the local fund are not Government employees as mentioned in the West Bengal Service Rules, Part I; Now, therefore, the Governor is hereby pleased to specify the following Scheme for utilization of persons employed in any Local Fund administered or not administered by Government of West Bengal or in a Company, Corporation, Undertaking, Statutory Body, Board etc. wholly or partially owned or controlled by the Government of West Bengal or by any Body which is funded wholly or partially by the Government of West Bengal in the event of restructuring by way of deployment or detailment in any Government offices or in any other local fund authority or any such entity." 12. There is no mandate in the Government scheme for the employer or the concerned authority to take the consent of the employee before such transfer, detailment or deployment by the Government. The discretion lies with the Government if it deems fit and proper, to utilise the service of the employee by way of deployment or detailment in any Government office. At this juncture it would be significant to refer to paragraphs 3(e), 3(g) and 3(h) of the affidavit in opposition on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed before the learned Single Judge. At this juncture it would be significant to refer to paragraphs 3(e), 3(g) and 3(h) of the affidavit in opposition on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed before the learned Single Judge. Paragraph 3(e) of the aforesaid affidavit-in-opposition reads as follows:- "3(e) There are 115 permanent staff in the said Corporation. But there is no sufficient printing job and the workers and the other employees remain grossly underutilized." Paragraphs 3(g) and 3(h) of the affidavit-in-opposition are reproduced hereinbelow:- "3(g) Under the State Government there are three presses and publication houses namely, Saraswati Press, Basumati and Shilpa Barta." "3(h) There are 127 establishments/offices of Information and Cultural Affairs Department and their printing jobs are done through these three Presses. The entire printing jobs of Information and Cultural Affairs Department has to be informed to the office of the Department at Nabanna for sanction before actual execution. This requires coordination at various stages. The Department is facing some difficulties in this regard for quite sometime past. Placement of some employees of the printing presses at the office of the Information and Cultural Affairs Department at Nabanna is expected to be helpful for effective coordination and proper utilization of the services of the employees of such Presses. Having felt the necessity of such placement as an experimental measure, the Government has issued the order impugned in the Writ Petition. It is expected that such step will be fruitful and lead to better utilization of near-idle manpower." 13. It is clear from the aforestated uncontroverted averments that to tide over the exigency of shortage of manpower in the establishment under the control of the Information and Cultural Affairs department, it was necessary to relocate some staff from some organizations including the corporation where there is hardly any work for the employees. For better and effective utilization of available manpower in companies, corporations and undertakings controlled by the Government, the scheme hereinbefore referred has been introduced in public interest. With this object in view, in pursuance of the aforesaid government scheme the impugned transfer order was issued. In Public Service Tribunals v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2003) 4 SCC 104 the Supreme Court observed as follows in paragraph 37 of the judgment:- "37. Transfer is an incident of service and is made in administrative exigencies. Normally it is not to be interfered with by courts. In Public Service Tribunals v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2003) 4 SCC 104 the Supreme Court observed as follows in paragraph 37 of the judgment:- "37. Transfer is an incident of service and is made in administrative exigencies. Normally it is not to be interfered with by courts. This Court consistently has been taking a view that orders of transfer should not be interfered with except in rare cases where the transfer has been made in a vindictive manner." 14. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent failed to convince us that the order of transfer was in any manner vindictive, arbitrary or whimsical. Nothing could be placed on record to show that the impugned order of transfer is prejudicial or disadvantageous to the writ petitioner in terms of financial benefit or in any other manner. The argument regarding Angshuman Sarkar is of no avail to the writ petitioner/respondent for the simple reason that it is the prerogative of the State Government or the controlling authority to decide the matter relating to transfer of its employees "as it deems fit and proper" considering administrative exigencies. 15. For the reasons aforestated we are of the firm view that the order passed by the learned single Judge is not sustainable. We therefore allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order. 16. Consequently, the connected application being CAN No. 29 of 2017 is thus disposed of. 17. No order as to costs. 18. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this judgement, if applied for, shall be given to the applicant upon compliance of requisite formalities.