JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. A.R Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Government Advocate for all the respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the decision taken in the meeting minutes dated 21.09.2011 (Annexure-13) where it was decided that the service on deputation under KVK, Mizoram is to be treated as Foreign Service w.e.f. 01.01.2012 and also the two communications dated 29.12.2016 (Annexure-24) and 10.02.2017 (Annexure-27) by which, the petitioners were informed about the rejection of their representation. 3. Brief facts of the case essential for disposal of the writ petition is that the petitioner Nos. 1, 4 & 5 are working under the Agriculture Department while the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are working under the Horticulture Department. They all were deputed under KVK, which is a Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) on different dates. The petitioner No. 1 was deputed to the post of Programme Co-ordinator under KVK North Vanlaiphai vide Notification dated 29.10.2009 (Annexure-4) and was repatriated back to her parent Department w.e.f. 01.01.2012 vide Notification dated 07.03.2012 (Annexure-16). Thereafter, vide Notification dated 07.03.2012 (Annexure-17), she was again deputed to the same post w.e.f. 01.01.2012 and thereafter, repatriated back to her parent Department vide Notification dated 16.03.2015 w.e.f. 01.04.2015. 4. The petitioner No. 2 was deputed to the post of Programme Co-ordinator, KVK Khawzawl vide Notification dated 23.06.2011 (Annexure-10) with effect from the date of her joining. Thereafter, vide Notification dated 07.03.2012 (Annexure-16), she was repatriated back to her parent Department w.e.f. 01.01.2012. The petitioner No. 2 was again deputed to the same post vide Notification dated 07.03.2012 w.e.f. 01.01.2012 and subsequently, repatriated back to her parent Department vide Notification dated 14.12.2016 (Annexure-23) w.e.f 01.01.2017. 5. The petitioner No. 3 was deputed to the post of Programme Co-ordinator, KVK Lawngtlai vide Notification dated 02.09.2011 (Annexure-11) with effect from the date of her joining and she was repatriated back to her parent Department vide Notification dated 07.03.2011 (Annexure-16) w.e.f. 01.01.2012. The respondent No. 3 was again deputed to the same post vide Notification dated 07.03.2012 (Annexure-17) w.e.f. 01.01.2012 and was repatriated back to his parent Department vide Notification dated 05.09.2016 (Annexure-22) w.e.f 19.09.2016. 6. The petitioner No. 4 was deputed to the post of Programme Co-ordinator, KVK Lengpui vide Notification dated 30.12.2014 (Annexure-18) and was thereafter repatriated back to his parent Department vide Notification dated 14.12.2016 w.e.f. 07.01.2017. 7. 6. The petitioner No. 4 was deputed to the post of Programme Co-ordinator, KVK Lengpui vide Notification dated 30.12.2014 (Annexure-18) and was thereafter repatriated back to his parent Department vide Notification dated 14.12.2016 w.e.f. 07.01.2017. 7. The petitioner No. 5 was deputed as Programme Coordinator, KVK North Vanalaiphai vide Notification dated 16.03.2015 w.e.f 01.04.2015 and was repatriated back to his parent Department vide Notification dated 14.12.2016 (Annexure-23) w.e.f. 01.04.2017. 8. According to the petitioners, their deputation to KVK under Agriculture Department is not a Foreign Service and therefore, they are exempted from pension contribution and leave salary contribution in terms of O.M dated 23.01.2002 (Annexure-1), Notification dated 22.02.2011 (Annexure-6) and the Communication dated 10.06.2011 (Annexure-9). As such, any deduction/contribution made from/by them towards the pension and leave salary is liable to be refunded and the entire period of service rendered under KVK should be counted as qualifying service for all purpose. However, in view of the impugned decision taken in the meeting minutes dated 21.09.2011, the petitioners have been asked to bear their leave salary and pension contribution w.e.f. 01.01.2012 till the time of their repatriation to their respective parent Department. Aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court. 9. Mr. A.R Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to the O.M dated 23.01.2002 submits that it has been clarified by the Finance Department, Govt. of Mizoram that services on deputation under any establishment/corporation funded under the consolidated fund of India, consolidated fund of the State or consolidated fund of Union Territory should not be treated as Foreign Service. By further referring to the Communication dated 04.06.2009 (Annexure-3) made by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Agriculture Department to the Director of Agriculture Research and Education, the learned counsel submits that the observation of the Finance Department was clearly conveyed in the said communication which stated that the employees of KVK are engaged for a specific period on co-terminus basis with the scheme and therefore, the question of pension and leave salary contribution cannot arise. However, in the case of those employees on deputation to KVK from the State Government, the funds received from the Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR) are booked under consolidated fund of the State and they are exempted from leave salary and contribution. 10. However, in the case of those employees on deputation to KVK from the State Government, the funds received from the Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR) are booked under consolidated fund of the State and they are exempted from leave salary and contribution. 10. The learned counsel submits that the said observation was made by the Finance Department vide their I.D No. FIN(E) 13/2009 dated 02.06.2009 and similar reference was made in the Notification dated 22.02.2011 (Annexure-6) issued by the Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Agriculture Department. He, therefore, submits that the deputation of the petitioners to KVK not being a Foreign Service, they are entitled to be exempted from making contribution towards pension and leave salary. 11. The learned counsel further submits that the impugned decision taken in the meeting minutes dated 21.09.2011 is also otherwise unauthorized and illegal, inasmuch as, the decision has been taken in violation of Rule 10, 11, 20 & 21 of the Govt. of Mizoram (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1987 (Transaction of Business Rules). The learned counsel submits that the decision taken in the meeting minutes dated 21.09.2011 has not been translated into a formal order in the manner prescribed by the Transaction of Business Rules. He submits that the meeting minutes itself cannot be the decision of the Government unless the same is conveyed in the form of an order or instrument executed by the competent authority. The learned counsel further submits that as per Rule 20 of the Transaction of Business Rules, the Departmental disposal of business has to be under the authority of the Minister-in-Charge of the Department. However, the same is not the case in respect of the decision taken in the meeting minutes dated 21.09.2011. Therefore, under any circumstance, the action of the respondents being unauthorized and illegal, Court may suitably interfere in the matter. In support of his submission, Mr. A.R Malhotra, the learned counsel relies upon the case of M/S M.R.F Ltd. vs. Manohar Parrikar & Ors., (2010) 11 SCC 374 . 12. Ms. H. Lalmalsawmi learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, submits that the O.M dated 23.01.2002 only covers the case of those deputed to the Mizoram Public Service Commission or the 3 Autonomous District Councils namely; Chakma, Lai and Mara Autonomous District Councils. 12. Ms. H. Lalmalsawmi learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, submits that the O.M dated 23.01.2002 only covers the case of those deputed to the Mizoram Public Service Commission or the 3 Autonomous District Councils namely; Chakma, Lai and Mara Autonomous District Councils. She, therefore, submits that FR-9(7) has to be read with clause 7.7(ii) of Appendix 5 of FR&SR, which was pointed out by the Chief Controller of Accounts, Accounts & Treasuries in his Letter dated 20.11.2009 to the Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Finance Department. She submits that the employees under KVK receive their remuneration/salary from the grants receive from the ICAR and therefore, the petitioners are to be treated as deputationist in Foreign Service. As provided in the FR&SR, a deputationist to a Foreign Service has either to contribute pension and leave salary himself or the same is to be borne by the borrowing department. She submits that in the present case, a MOU was signed between the Department and the ICAR to the effect that ICAR will not be liable to bear any expenditure on pension contribution and leave salary contribution besides other retirement benefits. Therefore, the petitioners cannot insist on being exempted from pension contribution and leave salary contribution particularly, when they have been clearly informed about the situation before they proceeded on deputation to KVK. She submits that the petitioners have only raised their grievances after they were all repatriated to their respective parent Department as an afterthought. Under the circumstance, she submits that the writ petition has no merit and the same should be dismissed. 13. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 14. From the projection made by the parties, the issue to be decided is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to be exempted from contributing towards their pension and leave salary and as to whether the decision taken in the impugned meeting minutes dated 21.09.2011 can be sustained. 15. Office Memorandum dated 23.01.2002 (Annexure-1) issued by the Finance Department is with regard to the interpretation of the term ‘Foreign Service’ and the clarification thereof. 15. Office Memorandum dated 23.01.2002 (Annexure-1) issued by the Finance Department is with regard to the interpretation of the term ‘Foreign Service’ and the clarification thereof. According to the office memorandum, Foreign Service literally means service in which a Government servant receives his pay with the sanction of the Government from any source other than consolidated fund of India or the consolidated fund of the State or the consolidated fund of Union Territory as per the FR&SR. Likewise, services on deputation under any establishment/corporations funded under the consolidated fund of India, consolidated fund of a State or consolidated fund of Union Territory should not be treated as Foreign Service. The clarifications of the Finance Department conveyed vide I.D No. FIN(E) 13/2009 dated 02.06.2009, which finds mentioned in the Communication dated 04.06.2009 (Annexure-3) and in the Notification dated 22.02.2011 (Annexure-6) provides that the fund received from ICAR are booked under the consolidated fund of the State and therefore, the Government employees on deputation to KVK funded by the ICAR are exempted from leave salary and pension contribution. Similarly, a clarificatory communication was made by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Agriculture Department to the Director of the same Department (Research & Education) (Annexure-9) to the effect that deputationist to KVK are exempted from paying pension and leave salary contribution by relying upon Finance Department’s O.M dated 23.01.2002. It may be pertinent to state herein that the O.M dated 15.03.2011 (Annexure-7) by which, the O.M dated 23.01.2002 was cancelled w.e.f. 15.03.2011 was put to challenge in WP(C) No. 117/2013 and this Court vide Judgment & Order dated 02.04.2014 set aside the O.M dated 15.03.2011, thereby reviving the O.M dated 23.01.2002. There is no material placed before this Court to show that the O.M dated 23.01.2002 has been superseded by any other office memorandum, apart from what has been decided through the impugned meeting minutes dated 21.09.2011. 16. There is no material placed before this Court to show that the O.M dated 23.01.2002 has been superseded by any other office memorandum, apart from what has been decided through the impugned meeting minutes dated 21.09.2011. 16. From the various documents referred to herein above particularly, O.M dated 23.01.2002 (Annexure-1), Letter dated 04.06.2009 (Annexure-3), Letter dated 20.11.2009 (Annexure-5), Notification dated 22.02.2011 (Annexure-6) and Letter dated 10.06.2011 (Annexure-9), there is no dispute to the fact that fund for the pay and allowances of the staffs under KVK are received from the ICAR and the same is credited/booked under the consolidated fund of the State and thereafter, re-allocated through normal budget Heads of Accounts of the State and therefore, going by the definition of Foreign Service provided under FR-9(7), the deputation of the petitioners to KVK cannot be termed as a Foreign Service. If their deputation is not a deputation to Foreign Service, clause 7.7(ii) of Appendix 5 of the FR&SR cannot be attracted as submitted by the learned Government. Therefore, the petitioners will be entitled to be exempted from contributing towards pension and leave salary. 17. Coming to the next question on the sustainability of the impugned meeting minutes dated 21.09.2011, there is no dispute to the fact that there is no formal order notifying the decision taken in the said meeting. The meeting comprised of Officers from the Agriculture Department, DP&AR, (GSW) and the Finance Department. The meeting was chaired by the Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Finance Department. Part-III of the Transaction of Business Rules provides for Departmental disposal of business. Rule 20 & 21 under Part-III provides as follows:- “20. Except as otherwise provided by any other Rule, cases shall ordinarily be disposed of by or under, the authority of the Minister-in-charge of the Department who shall give such directions as he thinks fit for the disposal of cases in his Department. Copies of important instructions shall be brought to the notice of the Chief Minister. 21. Whenever a matter concerns two departments, the fact shall be specifically brought to the notice of the Minister concerned. Thereupon, the Minister of concerned departments shall hold discussion and try to arrive at an understanding. The Ministers may however direct that the discussion may be held by the Secretaries of the Departments concerned. Such decision shall be recorded and placed before concerned Ministers. Thereupon, the Minister of concerned departments shall hold discussion and try to arrive at an understanding. The Ministers may however direct that the discussion may be held by the Secretaries of the Departments concerned. Such decision shall be recorded and placed before concerned Ministers. In case of any difference of opinion, the matter shall be put up before the Chief Minister for appropriate orders” 18. From the above abstract, it may be seen that cases are ordinarily to be disposed of by or under authority of Minister-in- Charge of the Department and if the matter concerned two Departments, the Ministers-in- Charge of the two Departments are to hold discussion to arrive to an understanding and in case of any difference of opinion, the matter is to be placed before the Chief Minister for appropriate orders. In the case at hand, there is no material on record to show that the impugned meeting minutes has been approved by the Minister-in-Charge of the Agriculture Department or any other Department as may be relevant and therefore, it is seen that there is clear violation of Rule 20 of the Transaction of Business Rules. 19. Further, for ready perusal Rule 10 & 11 of the Transaction of Business Rules which is also equally relevant may be reproduced as below:- “10. Orders or instruments made or executed by or on behalf of the Government of Mizoram shall be expressed to be made or executed in the name of the Governor of Mizoram. 11. Every order or instrument of the Government of the State shall be expressed to be made in the name of the Governor and shall be signed either by the Chief Secretary, a Special Secretary, an Additional Secretary, a Joint Secretary, a Deputy Secretary, an Under Secretary or such other Officer as may be specially empowered in that behalf and such signature shall deem to be proper authentication of such order or instrument.” 20. From the above abstract, it may be seen that any order or instrument made or executed by or on behalf of the Govt. of Mizoram has to be expressed to be made or executed in the name of the Governor of Mizoram. The Under Secretary and above are the competent authority to give their signature on such instrument. From the above abstract, it may be seen that any order or instrument made or executed by or on behalf of the Govt. of Mizoram has to be expressed to be made or executed in the name of the Governor of Mizoram. The Under Secretary and above are the competent authority to give their signature on such instrument. The State respondents in their counter affidavit have maintained that the impugned meeting minutes was duly signed by the Under Secretary to the State Government and therefore, there is no violation of the Transaction of Business Rules. However, the fact remains that the issue in hand is not with regard to the competency of the signatory of the meeting minutes, but the fact that the decision taken in the impugned meeting minutes has not been translated into a formal order on being approved by the competent authority, i.e., the Minister-in-Charge of the concerned Department. Therefore, it is clear that relevant provisions of the Transaction of Business Rules has not been followed. It may be noted that the Transaction of Business Rules has been framed by the Governor of Mizoram in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (2) and (3) of Article 166 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in the case of M/S M.R.F Ltd. (supra) held that the Transaction of Business Rules framed under the provision of Article 166(3) of the Constitution are mandatory and must be strictly adhered to. Any decision taken by the Government in breach of these Rules will be a nullity in the eye of the law. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment, which is at paragraph Nos. 89 to 92 may be quoted as hereunder:- “89. At this stage, we find it necessary to refer to some of the constitutional provisions to deal with the issue raised by the appellants. Under Article 154 of the Constitution of India, the Governor is vested with the executive power of the State and he shall exercise them either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. The Governor is advised by the Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at its head in exercise of his functions except those specifically stated in discharge of his functions as the Head of the State. The Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly of the State. The Governor is advised by the Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at its head in exercise of his functions except those specifically stated in discharge of his functions as the Head of the State. The Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly of the State. The Rules of Constitution are for convenient transaction of the business of the Government and for allocation of the business among the Ministers. Article 166(2) of the Constitution requires the decision of the State Government to be authenticated as per the Rules framed thereunder. Any decision taken by the State Government therefore, reflects the collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers and their participation in such decision making process. The Chief Minister as the Head of the Council of Ministers is answerable not only to the legislature but also to the Governor of the State. The Governor of the State as the Head of the State acts with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister. The Rules framed under Article 166 (3) of the Constitution are in aid to fulfill the constitutional mandate embodied in Chapter II of Part VI of the Constitution. Therefore, the decision of the State Government must meet the requirement of these Rules also. 90) Before the High Court as also before us it was contended by the appellants herein, that, the Rules framed under Article 166(3) are only directory in character and failure to comply with them does not vitiate the decision taken by the State Government. The High Court after considering the various judgments cited before it has repelled the said contention to hold that the said Rules are mandatory and non- compliance thereof would be disastrous. The reasoning adopted by the High Court to arrive at such a conclusion is sound and in accordance with the constitutional mandate. The decisions of the State Government have to be in conformity with the mandate of Article 154 and 166 of the Constitution as also the Rules framed thereunder as otherwise such decision would not have the form of a Government decision and will be a nullity. 91. The decisions of the State Government have to be in conformity with the mandate of Article 154 and 166 of the Constitution as also the Rules framed thereunder as otherwise such decision would not have the form of a Government decision and will be a nullity. 91. The Rules of Business framed under Article 166(3) of the Constitution are for convenient transaction of the business of the Government and the said business has to be transacted in a just and fit manner in keeping with the said Business Rules and as per the requirement of Article 154 of the Constitution. Therefore, if the Council of Ministers or Chief Minister has not been a party to a decision taken by an Individual Minister, that decision cannot be the decision of the State Government and it would be non-est and void ab initio. This conclusion draws support from the Judgment of this Court in the case of Haridwar Singh Vs. Bagun Sambrui. This Court in the said case was dealing with the Business Rules of the State of Bihar framed under Article 166 (3) of the Constitution of India and the observations of this Court on the issue apply to the case on hand in all force. This Court observed: "14. Where a prescription relates to performance of a public duty and invalidate acts done in neglect of them would work serious general inconvenience or injustice to persons who have no control over those entrusted with the duty, such prescription is generally understood as mere instruction for the guidance of those upon whom the duty is imposed...... 15. Where however, a power of authority is conferred with a direction that certain regulation or formality shall be complied with, it seems neither unjust nor incorrect to exact a rigorous observance of it as essential to the acquisition of the right or authority....... 16. Further, Rule 10(2) makes it clear that where prior consultation with the Finance Department is required for a proposal, and the department on consultation does not agree to the proposal, the department originating the proposal can take no further action on the proposal. The Cabinet alone would be competent to take a decision. 16. Further, Rule 10(2) makes it clear that where prior consultation with the Finance Department is required for a proposal, and the department on consultation does not agree to the proposal, the department originating the proposal can take no further action on the proposal. The Cabinet alone would be competent to take a decision. When we see that the disagreement of the Finance Department with a proposal on consultation, deprives the Department originating the proposal of the power to take further action on it, the only conclusion possible is that prior consultation is an essential prerequisite to the exercise of power". 92. As observed by us earlier, these observations apply equally to the case on hand and in light of this view, we have no difficulty in holding that the Business Rules framed under the Provisions of Article 166 (3) of the Constitution are mandatory and must be strictly adhered to. Any decision by the Government in breach of these Rules will be a nullity in the eyes of law. It is in this legal background that the issues raised before us have to be dealt with. 21. From a perusal of the above abstract and from an overall appreciation of the facts and circumstances projected in the instant writ petition, I find the ratio laid down by the Apex Court squarely applicable to the present case. 22. In the result, I find merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is held that the petitioners are entitled to exemption from contributing pension and leave salary while they were on deputation to KVK. Consequential orders and adjustments of what may have already been contributed be adjusted and carried out expeditiously and at any rate within the outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. Needless to say, the decision taken in the impugned meeting minutes dated 21.09.2011 (Annexure-13) and also the Communications dated 29.12.2016 (Annexure-24) and 10.02.2017 (Annexure-27) are accordingly interfered with. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own cost.