Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1445 (PAT)

Union Of India v. Central Administrative Tribunal

2010-07-05

BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

body2010
JUDGEMENT Shiva Kirti Singh and Birendra Prasad Verma JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2, the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal and Respondent No.3, the original employer of Respondent No. 2, M/s Bharat Wagon and Engineering Co. Limited. 2. The facts are not in dispute. Respondent No. 2 was allowed a deputation on the post of Section Officer in the office of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna and he got two extensions. When his 3rd year on deputation was to expire on 3.10.2005, by order dated 22.8.2005 contained in Annexure-5 an order was issued by the competent authority for repatriation of Respondent No. 2 to his parent employer, Respondent No. 3. He was relieved by order dated 24.8.2005 (Annexure-6) w.e.f. 22.8.2005. Against the order of repatriation the Respondent No. 2 preferred O.A. No. 571 of 2005 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna and that has been allowed by the impugned order dated 18th May, 2006. A perusal of that order clearly shows that in response to the O.A., a written statement had been filed by the officers of Debts Recovery Tribunal in which it was admitted that certain complaints had been received against the functioning of the Respondent No. 2 as Section Officer and after taking into account all relevant matters and for better functioning of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna a decision had been taken to repatriate the Respondent No. 2 to his parent organization. The stand of the parent employer before the Tribunal was that it has no financial resources to pay to its employees. The learned Tribunal came to an opinion that the order of repatriation was on account of certain complaints against the Respondent No. 2 and in such circumstances, the Tribunal interfered with the order of the repatriation by quashing the same but gave liberty to the Respondents that if they feel that continuation of the Respondent No. 2 in Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna Office was not in the interest of administration then they would be free to issue a show-cause notice to him in respect of complaints and findings of the enquiry and after considering his show-cause, if they find the same unsatisfactory, the concerned Respondents may order again for his repatriation to the parent department regardless of the fact that the parent department is financially sound or not. 3. 3. The issue raised in this writ petition is that an order of repatriation does not affect any right of the employee on deputation and a perusal of the actual order shows that no stigma was cast against him even by implication and hence the Tribunal should not have interfered with the order of repatriation in respect of Respondent No. 2. Considering such stand of the writ petitioner, for having a detailed consideration, the writ petition was admitted for final hearing. 4. After hearing the parties, we find that after the impugned order of the Tribunal was passed on 18th May, 2006, the concerned authorities who had power, reinstated Respondent No. 2 on the post of Section Officer in Debts Recovery Tribunal office at Patna and the order dated 2.7.2007 contained in Annexure-K to the counter affidavit of Respondent No. 2 discloses that by this office order Respondent No. 2 has been absorbed permanently in the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna w.e.f. 1.6.2007 on the post of Section Officer (Group-B Gazetted) in terms of Relevant Recruitment Rules of 2001. The said office order dated 2.7.2007 makes it clear that such absorption was consequent upon exercise of option for absorption and no objection issued by the parent employer through letter dated 31.7.2006 and consequent upon recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 1st June, 2007. 5. It is not in dispute that the order for permanent absorption of Respondent No. 2 on the post which he held earlier under deputation has been issued by the competent authority under relevant rules and has been accepted by all concerned. As a consequence of such absorption on permanent basis, Respondent No. 2 has no longer any lien on the post which he held under Respondent No. 3, the parent employer. 6. In such circumstances, it would be futile to even consider the writ petition on merits because now no order for his repatriation can be issued when he holds no lien in his parent organization and that also on account of a voluntary order of absorption passed by the competent authorities who had earlier issued impugned order of repatriation. 7. 6. In such circumstances, it would be futile to even consider the writ petition on merits because now no order for his repatriation can be issued when he holds no lien in his parent organization and that also on account of a voluntary order of absorption passed by the competent authorities who had earlier issued impugned order of repatriation. 7. In such circumstances, in our considered view, the issue raised in this writ petition is now only of academic interest and the matter has become infructuous on account of permanent absorption of Respondent No. 2 on the post in question under the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna. 8. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs.