Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 842 (ALL)

Ravindra Singh v. State of U. P.

2015-04-16

SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2015
JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal. J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Fareed Ahmad, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 4. 2. Petitioner admittedly was engaged and appointed as Pump Operator in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad on 01.10.1979 and was regularized thereat as has been stated in para 2 and 3 of the writ petition. 3. It appears that in 1992 the petitioner, while working as Pump Operator, was transferred to serve under Jal Sansthan. This document is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In para 4 of the writ petition the petitioner has read this document as merger of his services in Jal Santhan but from the entire reading of document, I do not find that except of transfer of services to Jal Santhan there was any merger of petitioner’s services thereat. Now by means of impugned order dated 19.07.2001 petitioner has been repatriated back to his parent department. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once petitioner has been merged in Jal Santhan, now he cannot be repatriated back to his parent department. 5. However, there is no material on record to show that petitioner’s services were ever merged in Jal Santhan. On the contrary, for the functional efficiency, service of petitioner was transferred to Jal Santhan and now by means of impugned order he has been repatriated back to his parent department. I, therefore, do not find any illegality in the order impugned in this writ petition warranting interference inasmuch no person has a right to continue in a foreign service and it is always open to competent authority to repatriate the employee concerned to his parent department. 6. In Ratilal B. Soni and others v. State of Gujrat and others, 1990 (Supp) SCC 243, the Court held : - "5. The appellants being on deputation they could be reverted to their parent cadre at any time and they do not get any right to be absorbed on the deputation post....." 7. 6. In Ratilal B. Soni and others v. State of Gujrat and others, 1990 (Supp) SCC 243, the Court held : - "5. The appellants being on deputation they could be reverted to their parent cadre at any time and they do not get any right to be absorbed on the deputation post....." 7. In Kunal Nanda v. Union of India, 2000 (5) SCC 362 , the Court held: - "The basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the person concerned can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in a substantive position therein at the instance; either of the departments and there is no vested right in such a person to continue for long on deputation or get absorbed in the department to which he had gone on deputation." 8. In Union of India and another v. V. Ramakrishnan and others, 2005 (8) SCC 394 , the same view has been reiterated and in paragraph 32 of the judgment, the Court observed: - "Ordinarily, a deputationist has no legal right to continue in the post. A deputationist indisputably has no right to be absorbed in the post to which he is deputed. However, there is no bar thereto as well. It may be true that when deputation does not result in absorption in the service to which an officer is deputed, no recruitment in its true import and significance takes place as he is continued to be a member of the parent service. When the tenure of deputation is specified, despite a deputationist not having an indefeasible right to hold the said post, ordinarily the term of deputation should not be curtailed except on such just grounds as for example, unsuitably or unsatisfactory performance. But, even where the tenure is not specified, an order of reversion can be question when the same is malafide. An action taken in post haste manner also indicates malice." 9. The concept of transfer and deputation has been explained by the Apex Court in Prasar Bharti and others v. Amarjeet Singh and others, 2007 (2) SCALE 486 and it has been held that a person sent in a cadre outside his substantive cadre has no right to continue in foreign cadre and can be repatriated to his parent cadre at any point of time without assigning any reason. Further, the authorities cannot be required to assign any reason, whatsoever, in an order of transfer and such power of transfer cannot be fettered by requiring them to record reason. Which employee should be posted where is absolutely within the domain of the authority concerned and unless it is shown that a order of transfer/repatriation is contrary to the statutory rules or is otherwise mala fide or has been passed by the incompetent authority, only then the Court may interfere and not otherwise. (See: State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Saxena, AIR 1998 SC 925 , Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & others, JT 2007 (12) SC 467). 10. The Apex Court in U.P. Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh & Ors. v. Daya Ram Saroj & ORs. , (2007) 2 SCC 138 held that the persons having been sent to deputation have no right to continue and they can be repatriated to their parent department. 11. A Division Bench of this Court also in Gauri Shanker v. State of U.P. and Others, 2005 (1) AWL 426 held as under: ".........A deputationist has no right to remain on deputation and he can be sent back to his Parent Department at any time......." 12. The same view has been followed by another Division Bench of this court in the case of Dr. Seema Kundra v. State of U.P., 2003 (1) AWL 520. 13. In Devi Kumar v. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, 2004 (3) UPLBC 2318, this court observed as under: ".........The period of deputation originally fixed can be cut short, if considering necessary, a deputationist has no right to continue in the deputation post........." 14. This court in Ashok Kumar Pandev v. State of U.P. and Others. writ petition no 52527 of 2005, decided on 3rd August 2005, held: ".........It is well settled that a deputationist has no right to remain on deputation and he can be sent back to his Parent Department at any time........" 15. In view of above, the writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.