Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 341 (PAT)

Man Mohan Jha v. State Of Bihar

2003-03-26

NARAYAN ROY

body2003
Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties and considered the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State. 2. The order issued vide memo No. 4410875 Patna dated 9-10-2002, as contained in Annexure-6, is under challenge, whereby and whereunder the petitioner is being repatriated to his parent Department i.e. Bihar State Agro Industries Development Corporation. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assails the order impugned mainly on the ground that the petitioner remained on deputation for several years along with other persons, but he has been singled out and he is being repatriated, whereas other persons are holding the post in the Department on deputation. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that the petitioner apprehends that he may not get his salary due to financial crunch and, therefore, in the ends of justice, he is entitled to get the equitable relief. Learned Counsel in this regard has referred an order passed by this Court, as contained in Annexure-8, in the case of AmarNath Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors.. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State stating therein, inter alia, that the petitioner has no vested right to remain on deputation and he cannot object to the order of repatriation. 5. Learned Standing Counsel No. 3, appearing on behalf of the State, also submitted that the order of repatriation is not stigmatic, as the petitioner is not being repatriated on allegations. 6. It appears that the petitioner is being repatriated in normal course to his parent Department. A deputationist has no vested right to remain on deputation for ever and in routine way, he is to be repatriated to his parent Department. 7. In that view of the matter, the deputationist cannot claim vested right to remain on deputation. 8. So far the case of AmarNath Singh, referred to above, is concerned, it appears that this Court held that the petitioner was not being repatriated in normal course, rather he was repatriated on certain allegations, and, therefore, the order was interfered with. 9. The case of the petitioner is distinguishable from that of Amar Nath Singh aforesaid, as contained in Annexure-8. 10. 9. The case of the petitioner is distinguishable from that of Amar Nath Singh aforesaid, as contained in Annexure-8. 10. So far the other limb of argument of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that similarly situated persons are on deputation, is concerned, it does not hold good for the petitioner in case of repatriation. The petitioner cannot claim parity and as a matter of right, he cannot remain on deputation for ever. 11. So far the financial crunch is concerned, the petitioner may have the apprehension, but in any event, the authority will protect the interest of the petitioner and in case, he will have any grievance and he will not be getting his salary, he will be at liberty to approach this Court for the redressal of his grievances. 12. For the reasons aforementioned, I do not find any merit in this application. 13. It is, accordingly, dismissed.