JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By way of present writ application the petitioner has prayed for direction upon the respondents to ensure and make payment of all retiral dues which has not been paid to the petitioner after his superannuation from service on 31.01.2018 as Peon under Minor Irrigation Division, Medininagar under the heads of (A) Gratuity, (B) Fixation of Pension, (C) Packing Allowance, (D) Utilized leave for 300 days, (E) Salary for the period from 1995 to 2000 along with the interest accumulated thereof. 3. After perusing the respective affidavits, it appears that the liability of BHALCO has already been paid to the petitioner, however, the liability of State of Jharkhand has not been satisfied till date. 4. Learned counsel for the respective parties including the State of Jharkhand fairly submits that this case is squarely covered by the decision rendered in W.P.(S). No. 1935 of 2014 (Rajeshwar Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.), however, learned State Counsel submits that though the case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid judgment, however, the State has challenged the decision rendered by this Court in the above referred case i.e. W.P.(S). No. 1935 of 2014 and the same is still pending. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the order passed in W.P.(S). No. 1935 of 2014 (Rajeshwar Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and looking to the facts of this case, it appears that this case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. 6. For brevity the relevant paragraphs of the judgment rendered in W.P.(S). No. 1935 of 2014 (Rajeshwar Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) is extracted herein below: “ 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits and the averments made therein it is an admitted case that the petitioner was earlier appointed as Store Keeper in BHALCO and worked till 10.01.2000. Subsequently, on 11.01.2000 he was sent on deputation to the sanctioned post of Correspondence Clerk in Minor Irrigation Department, Ranchi for three years. However, his services were extended and finally he retired from Minor Irrigation Department in the year 2013. Subsequently, on 11.01.2000 he was sent on deputation to the sanctioned post of Correspondence Clerk in Minor Irrigation Department, Ranchi for three years. However, his services were extended and finally he retired from Minor Irrigation Department in the year 2013. It also appears that pursuant to the Resolution No. 6 660 dated 28.02.2009, whereby the Finance Department revised the pay in terms of 6th pay revision commission; the benefits of such 6th pay revision was also extended to this petitioner vide office order No. 279 dated 20.03.2009 w.e.f. 01.01.2006. It is only when the petitioner retired and made representation for payment of his retiral benefits, the benefit of 6th pay revision commission which was earlier given to the petitioner vide order No. 279 dated 20.03.2009; was withdrawn vide order dated 26.10.2013. 11. Thus, the first issue that requires determination in the present case is whether the case of the petitioner can be treated as transfer by deputation or appointment by deputation ? In the instant case since the parent department i.e. BHALCO was at the stage of winding up and was not in position to retain its employees; as such as per the policy decision of the Government every employee were sent on deputation to other government departments and the petitioner was also sent on deputation to Minor Irrigation Monitoring and Valuation Division, Ranchi on the sanctioned post of correspondence clerk. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel Vs. Union of India & Another, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 757 has held that ordinarily transfers on 7 deputations are made as against equivalent post from one cadre to another, however in cases where the deputation has been made by way of advertisement then in that case the same cannot be treated as deputation by transfer rather it will be considered as appointment by deputation. In the instant case, though there was no advertisement; but it was the policy decision of the Government that since BHALCO was on the verge of closure and under winding up process; all the employees of BHALCO shall be deputed to other organizations of the State Government; as such, the case of this petitioner cannot be termed as transfer by deputation, rather his case will be treated as an appointment on deputation. For better appreciation, paragraph 13 and 14 of the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel (supra) is quoted herein below:- “ 13. Ordinarily transfers on deputations are made as against equivalent post from one cadre to another, one department to another, one organisation to another, or one Government to another; in such case a deputationist has no legal right in the post. Such deputationist has no right to be absorbed in the post to which he is deputed. In such case, deputation does not result into recruitment, as no recruitment in its true import and significance takes place as the person continues to be a member of the parent service. 14. However, the aforesaid principle cannot be made applicable in the matter of appointment (recruitment) on deputation. In such case, for appointment on deputation 8 in the services of the State or organisation or State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the provisions of Article 14 and Article 16 are to be followed. No person can be discriminated nor is it open to the appointing authority to act arbitrarily or to pass any order in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A person who applies for appointment on deputation has an indefeasible right to be treated fairly and equally and once such person is selected and offered with the letter of appointment on deputation, the same cannot be cancelled except on the ground of nonsuitability or unsatisfactory work.” 12. The next issue which is to be decided is that whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of 6th pay revision as was applicable to the regular employees ? In the instant case, the respondent-State of Jharkhand has taken a conscious decision to extend the benefits of 6th pay revision commission and an office order as contained in Memo No. 279 dated 20.03.2009 was also issued whereby the petitioner was made entitled to the benefits of 6th pay revision w.e.f. 01.01.2006. However, when the petitioner made representation after his retirement for his retiral benefits including arrears of salary; the respondent-authorities withdraw the benefit given earlier. This decision of the State Government is in the teeth of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bihar State Beverages Corporation Limited and others Vs. However, when the petitioner made representation after his retirement for his retiral benefits including arrears of salary; the respondent-authorities withdraw the benefit given earlier. This decision of the State Government is in the teeth of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bihar State Beverages Corporation Limited and others Vs. Naresh Kumar Mishra & Ors, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 110 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex 9 Court at paragraph nos. 22, 23, 27 and 28 has laid down the law as under: “ 22. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the impugned judgment and order the Division Bench of the High Court has directed the appellant Corporation to grant the benefit of pay scale to the respondents herein, original writ petitioners as per the 6th PRC, as per the decision of the Corporation itself in 2010. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has also quashed and set aside the Resolution of the Corporation dated 27-3-2012, by which it was resolved to pay the salary to the employees of the Corporation as is being paid to the employees working in the parent organisations. 23. Now, so far as the quashing and setting aside the Resolution dated 27-3-2012 by which the Corporation resolved to pay salary to the employees of the Corporation as is being paid in the parent Board/parent organisation is concerned, it is required to be noted that it is not in dispute that the respective original writ petitioners are on deputation from different Boards/organisations. Therefore, if the Resolution dated 27-3-2012 is permitted to be implemented, in that case, there shall be disparity in the pay scale/salary of the employees of the Corporation doing the same/similar work. There may be different pay scales/salaries in the respective parent organisations. However, when they are working with the Corporation and doing the similar work, they have to be paid the salary which is paid to other employees doing the same/similar work. It is not in dispute that the employees working on different posts in the Corporation are doing the same/similar work. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly applied the “principle of equal pay for equal work” and has rightly quashed and set aside the 10 Resolution dated 27-3-2012. 27. It is not in dispute that the employees working on different posts in the Corporation are doing the same/similar work. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly applied the “principle of equal pay for equal work” and has rightly quashed and set aside the 10 Resolution dated 27-3-2012. 27. Now, so far as the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court directing the appellant Corporation to grant pay scale to the respondents herein, original writ petitioners as per the 6th PRC is concerned, it is required to be noted that, as such, the appellant Corporation itself took a conscious decision in the year 2010 to grant the benefit of 6th PRC to the employees working with the Corporation. However, on the advice of the Finance Department that the Corporation may grant the benefit of 6th PRC to their permanent employees and not to the employees on deputation, the Corporation thereafter took a decision not to grant the benefit of the pay scale as per the 6th PRC. As rightly held by the Division Bench of the High Court, the advice by the Finance Department was non- application of mind, inasmuch so far as the Corporation is concerned, there is not a single employee appointed by the Corporation on permanent basis and the entire staff is either on deputation or on contract basis from other Boards/organisations. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly directed the appellant Corporation to grant the pay scale to the respondent, original writ petitioners as per the 6th PRC. However, at the same time, it is to be clarified that they will get the pay scale as per the 6th PRC so long as they continue to work with the appellant Corporation and as and when they are repatriated, in that case, they shall be governed by the pay scale paid to the employees in the parent Board/organisation. 28. In view of the above submissions and for the reasons stated hereinabove, both the present appeals fail and they deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. 28. In view of the above submissions and for the reasons stated hereinabove, both the present appeals fail and they deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. However, it is clarified that the original writ petitioners shall be entitled to the pay scale as recommended by the 6th PRC so long as they work in the appellant Corporation and as and when and in case they are repatriated to their parent Board/organisation they shall be governed by the pay scales paid to the employees of the parent Board/organisation concerned. No costs.” 13. Respectfully relying upon the aforesaid principle as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the firm opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the 6th pay revision and the withdrawal of the said benefit is non-est in the eye of law. 14. Now, the last and most important issue is that whether the petitioner is entitled for absorption in the State of Jharkhand ? From perusal of records it appears that the petitioner was deputed in Minor Irrigation Department, in the background that his parent organization- BHALCO was under process of winding up and it was not in a position to retain its own employees and a policy decision was taken by the Government to depute all the employees of BHALCO to its different departments. Therefore, the petitioner was deputed with no scope of repatriation. Initially, the period of deputation was for the three years which was further extended for an indefinite time by stating “until further orders”. The petitioner continued to work in the borrowing department for as long as 13 years and superannuated in the year 2013 from the Minor Irrigation Department, State of Jharkhand. Moreover, a similar matter relating to absorption of the deputationist in the borrowing department on account of closure of the parent department has been decided by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 347 of 2015 in the following manner: “ 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, it appears that the petitioner was sent on deputation to Ranchi Nagar Nigam in the year, 1995 in view of the fact that High Tension Insulator Factory/Malleable Cast Iron Foundry was closed down. It further transpires that from the date of deputation the petitioner continuously worked with the respondent- Corporation till 31.12.2011 when he superannuated from his service. It further transpires that from the date of deputation the petitioner continuously worked with the respondent- Corporation till 31.12.2011 when he superannuated from his service. The petitioner was denied regular service and increment being paid to the regular employees of the Ranchi Nagar Nigam on the ground that the petitioner was taken on deputation and therefore, he was not entitled for the regular pay scale and increment being paid to the regular employees of the corporation. After perusing the previous order passed by this Court in petitioner’s own case in W.P.(S) No. 4015 of 2012, it appears that the Hon’ble Court has categorically held that where the parent Department has ceased to exist and an employee sent on deputation under the Government policy, has worked for a long period of 16 years and was not ever released to join his parent department and could not be released because of the fact that the parent department has ceased to exist, therefore, the petitioner was legally entitled for consideration for absorption in the Ranchi Nagar Nigam.” The case of the petitioner in the instant case stands on the same footing and his services are entitled to be absorbed in the borrowing company on account of closure of the parent Corporation.” 15. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussions, all the three issues has been decided in favour of the petitioner. As such, the impugned letter as contained in memo no. 1168 dated 26.10.2013, is hereby, quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall make a representation before the respondent no.4 for that period when he was posted at BHALCO and if any amount is still due; then the respondent State of Bihar shall calculate the same and take a decision on the claim of the petitioner and pay the same. So far as the claim of regularization is concerned; in view of the aforesaid findings; the respondent-State of Jharkhand shall take a formal decision for regularization of this petitioner in view of the fact that it was not a case of transfer on deputation rather it has been held to be appointment on deputation for the sole reason that the petitioner was never repatriated and the parent organization was on the verge of closure and is in winding up process and as per the statement of learned counsel for JHALCO, it has never revived. At this stage it is necessary to mention here that similarly situated persons who were employees of BHALCO and who were deputed in different other organizations and were retained in the State of Bihar after bifurcation; they are getting the same and similar benefits of State employees. As such, the State of Jharkhand is directed to take a formal decision in the light of the aforesaid findings and pass a necessary order with respect to monetary benefits in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is also at liberty to file a representation before the State of Jharkhand for claim of monetary benefit. It goes without saying that since the matter is very old, the entire exercise shall be completed by the respondent-authorities within a period of four months from the date of receipt / production of copy of this order and/or representation.” 7. Accordingly, the respondent-State of Jharkhand shall take a formal decision for regularization of the petitioner in view of the fact that it was not a case of transfer on deputation; rather, it has been held to be appointment on deputation for the sole reason that the petitioner was never repatriated and the parent Organization was on the verge of closure and is in winding up process and as per the statement of learned counsel for JHALCO, it has never revived. 8. From the averments made in the writ petition it also appears that similarly situated persons who were employees of BHALCO and who were deputed in different other Organizations and were retained in the State of Bihar after bifurcation; they are getting the same and similar benefits of State employees. Accordingly, the State of Jharkhand is directed to take a formal decision and pass a necessary order with respect to monetary benefits in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is also at liberty to file a representation before the State of Jharkhand for claim of monetary benefit. The entire exercise for payment of monetary benefits shall be concluded within a period of 16 weeks. 9. It goes without saying that since the case of Rajeshwar Prasad has already been assailed by the State of Jharkhand before the Division Bench of this Court; as such, any benefits given pursuant to this order to the petitioner shall be subject to the final outcome of LPA. 10. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of.