6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that by order dated 08.04.2026, the learned Single Judge allowed the review to the limited extent of substituting the word "absorption" with "deputation". However, despite correcting the factual error, the learned Single Judge directed that all other findings and directions contained in the judgment dated 10.03.2026 would remain unchanged, without reconsidering the legal consequences flowing from the appellant's status as a deputationist. He further stated that the Rehabilitation Policy, 2016 itself unequivocally provides that upon dissolution of MPSRTC, all its assets, liabilities, rights and employees stood vested in CIDC and that such employees would be deemed to be employees of CIDC. The policy further clarifies that CIDC shall be the employer of such employees and that orders relating to their deputation, transfer and retirement are to be issued only by CIDC. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no dispute regarding the appellant's substantive employer being CIDC. Even the State, in its reply filed in WPS No.1876/2021, acknowledged that the appellant had been absorbed in CIDC with retrospective effect pursuant to the Government's Rehabilitation Policy. Consequently, while the appellant may have been working in the Women and Child Development Department on deputation, the authority to transfer him continued to vest exclusively with CIDC and not with the State Government.
