K PRADEEP KUMAR v. UOI & Ors.

Mr.Nitish Gupta, Advocate for R-1 to R-3 W.P.(C) 851/2011 PARMAL SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.V.K.Rao, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Ayushya Kumar, Advocate versus UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Ravinder Aggarwal, CGSC with Mr.Nitish Gupta, Advocate for R-1 to R-3 W.P.(C) 856/2011 JACOB KURIAKOSE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.V.K.Rao, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Ayushya Kumar, Advocate versus UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Ravinder Aggarwal, CGSC with Mr.Nitish Gupta, Advocate for R-1 to R-3 WP(C)No.SS0/2011 & connected matters Page 1 of3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. --·-l, ··,:;- __c. -·-l, ! - ' .•1, y CORAM: HON.BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON.BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT ORDER 09.02.2011 Learned counsel for th.e petitioners states that a reply %

has been sent only to jacob Kuriakose on his request permanent absorption under IB and as per which it is stated that since he was inducted in BOI (Bureau of Immigration) and there being no provision for absorption of deputationist under BOI, his request for absorption cannot be accepted.

Relevant would it be to note that as per petitioners, similar rejection has not been communicated to the other two writ petitioners.

We note that at the time of petitioners' deputation from CRPF it stands communicated to them that they would be joining IB on deputation. We note communication sent to the Parent Department I i.e. the CRPF is IB and clearly records the petitioners joining IB on . -- deputation .

Without commenting rejection communicated on 19th July to jacob Kuriakose, since we find that the respondents have not dealt with the contentions of the petitioners we dispose of the 3 writ petitions issuing a direction to the second respondent i.e. the Intelligence Bureau to treat the 3 writ petitions as a representations by the petitioners seeking their permanent absorption under lB. A reasoned order dealing with WP(C)No.SS0/2011 & connected matters the contentions urged would be passed and communicated to the petitioners. If the order is in favour of the 3 petitioner, that would the end of the matter. If the order is against the petitioner the same would not be effected to for a period of 7 days from date of communication of the order.

We take on record the stand of both counsel that as of today, all 3 writ petitioners are still working under IB and the proposed date of their repatriation set was 14.2.2011. Needless to state in view of the directions issued today, the date

14.2.2011 has been rendered meaningless.

terms.