JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Since all the matters are inter-related to each other the same were heard together and are being disposed of by the common judgment and order. 2. Before coming to the issues involved in these cases, the facts of each case, which need to be taken notice of, are as follows: WP (C) No. 175 of 2013: 3. The petitioner, while was working in the Public Works Department, Manipur as Section Officer, his services were placed at the disposal of the Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Manipur for his appointment as Section Officer in the Rural Development Department vide order dated 2.6.2005 (Annexure P/2) issued by the Joint Secretary, Works, Government of Manipur. On being deputed to Rural Development Department, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in Manipur State Rural Road Development Agency (MSRRDA) vide order dated 4.2.2006 issued by the Chairman, Manipur State Rural Road Development Agency. However, the petitioner was repatriated to his parent department (PWD) vide order dated 21.11.2008 (Annexure-P/4). Subsequently, the Minister, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj put a note on the file that the petitioner was a key technical officer in implementation of PMGSY and as such, his service is required in the agency. The minister wished that the said proposal be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Minister for placement of the services to the Rural Development department. That proposal seems to have got approval and thereby services of the petitioner was again placed to the disposal of the Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj for appointment as Surveyor of Works, (SW)/Executive Engineer in Manipur State Rural Road Development Agency, vide order dated 27.3.2010 issued by the Deputy Secretary (Works) Government of Manipur (Annexure-P/15). Consequently, the petitioner was appointed as Surveyor of Works/Executive Engineer in the Agency vide order dated 24.8.2010 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary (RD & PR) (Annexure-P/7). On being appointed, the petitioner started discharging his function, during which he was entrusted with important duties to be discharged by him. While the petitioner was serving in the Rural Road Development Agency, three posts of Superintending Engineers were created in the said department, which posts were desired to be filled up on deputation by engineers experienced in getting work of road projects implemented in time. While the petitioner was serving in the Rural Road Development Agency, three posts of Superintending Engineers were created in the said department, which posts were desired to be filled up on deputation by engineers experienced in getting work of road projects implemented in time. Pursuant to creation of the said posts, three persons including the petitioner, who were deputed in the Rural Road Development Agency desired to be appointed on deputation on the post of Superintending Engineers. The said information was given by Chief Engineer, MSRRDA to the Chief Engineer, PWD, Manipur vide its letter dated 28.9.2012 (Annexure-P/9). Pursuant to that letter, Deputy Secretary, Works, Government of Manipur vide its letter dated 5.10.2012 (Annexure P/10) conveyed to the Chief Engineer, MSRRDA regarding approval of the deputation of the three engineers of PWD. After having approval, a screening committee was constituted for taking up the matter relating to appointment on the post of Superintending Engineers. The Screening Committee made recommendation for appointment of the petitioner holding substantive post of Section Officer in the PWD, as Superintending Engineer in MSRRDA on deputation for a period of one year at a time extendable up to maximum period of five years, which got approval of the Government. Intimation of it was given by the Joint Secretary, RD & PR, vide its letter dated 5.11.2012 (Annexure-P/11) to the Principal Secretary, Works Department. The Deputy Secretary, Works, Government of Manipur, in turn, wrote a letter dated 22.11.2012 (Annexure-P/12) to the Additional Chief Secretary (RD & PR) intimating therein that the services of the petitioner being placed at the disposal of the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj got approved by the Government. According to the case of the petitioner, while he was discharging his duty to the full satisfaction of the authority, the Additional Chief Secretary, RD & PR passed an order on 23.11.2012 (Annexure P/13) whereby services of the petitioner was repatriated to the parent department. However, by same stroke of pen, it was also ordered that the petitioner is appointed as Superintending Engineer in the Rural Road Development Agency for a period of one year on deputation basis, under the terms and conditions laid down by the department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj. However, by same stroke of pen, it was also ordered that the petitioner is appointed as Superintending Engineer in the Rural Road Development Agency for a period of one year on deputation basis, under the terms and conditions laid down by the department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj. According to the case of the petitioner, when he had been appointed on deputation on the post of Superintending Engineer in Rural Road Development Agency, deputation of the petitioner was terminated, which was intimated by the Deputy Secretary, Works to the Joint Secretary, RD & PR vide its letter dated 28.2.2013 (Annexure-P/1). Being aggrieved with the termination of deputation, the petitioner did file writ application bearing WP (C) No. 175 of 2013. This Court while hearing the matter at motion stage passed an interim order on 12.3.2013 whereby, operation of the impugned order as contained in letter dated 28.2.2013 (Annexure-P/1) was suspended until further order. WP (C) No. 190 of 2013: 4. Consequent upon the aforesaid order as contained in letter dated 28.2.2013, terminating the deputation of the petitioner to the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, the services of the petitioner was repatriated to his parent department, PWD as in-charge Assistant Surveyor of Works vide order dated 12.3.2013 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, RD & PR, which order is under challenge in the aforesaid writ application. Cont Case (C) No. 121 of 2014: 5. Since, as per the case of the petitioner, order passed on 12.3.2013, repatriating the petitioner to the parent department was under the teeth of the order dated 12.3.2013 passed by this Court in WP (C) No. 175 of 2013 suspending order relating to cancellation of the deputation, the respondent has violated the order of this Court and thereby respondents made themselves liable to be prosecuted under the Contempt of Courts Act. WP (C) No. 40 of 2013: 6. Much before the petitioner’s deputation being cancelled on 28.2.2013 and consequently he being repatriated to the parent department vide order dated 12.3.2013 some of the persons working as Executive Engineer in-charge in the Manipur State Rural Road Development Agency filed the aforesaid writ application on 19.1.2013 seeking quashing of the order dated 23.11.2012 appointing the petitioner of the other two writ applications namely, Shri S. Gopendro Singh, as Superintending Engineer in Rural Road Development Agency. 7. 7. Upon hearing at the motion stage, this Court, vide order dated 30.1.2013 passed an interim order to the effect that the order dated 23.11.2012 shall not be given effect to till the next date. MC (WP (C)) No. 205 of 2015: 8. This application has been filed on behalf of the Additional Chief Secretary, RD & PR, Government of Manipur for vacating/modification of the interim order dated 12.3.2013 wrongly been mentioned as 23.11.2012 passed in WP (C) No. 175 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the operation of the impugned order dated 28.2.2013, by which the petitioner of WP (C) No. 190 of 2013 and 175 of 2013 had been promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer had been suspended. MC (WP (C)) No. 216 of 2015: 9. This application has been filed on behalf of the Principal Secretary, Works, Government of Manipur and others for vacating/modification of the interim order dated 12.3.2013 passed in WP (C) No. 175 of 2013 whereby and whereunder this Court had suspended the impugned order as contained in the letter dated 28.2.2013 whereby and whereunder the petitioner namely, S. Gopendro Singh had been promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer. 10. Mr. Rarry, learned counsel appearing in writ application bearing WP (C) No. 175 and 190 of 2013 submits that when the petitioner was working on the post of Section Officer in PWD, his services were placed at the disposal of the Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj for appointing as Section Officer in Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department. Accordingly, he was appointed as Assistant Engineer in Manipur State Rural Road Development Agency. After three years, the petitioner was repatriated to the parent department, i.e. PWD, but when it was felt that services of the petitioner is urgently required in Rural Development Department as the petitioner happens to be quite efficient in implementing the scheme of PMGSY, services of the petitioner was again placed on 27.3.2010 at the disposal of the Commissioner, RD & PR for appointing him as Surveyor of Works/Executive Engineer until further order. Subsequently, he was appointed as Surveyor of Works/Executive Engineer in Rural Road Development Agency. Subsequently, he was appointed as Surveyor of Works/Executive Engineer in Rural Road Development Agency. While he was discharging his duty, three posts of Superintending Engineers got created in the Rural Road Development Agency, which was to be filled up on deputation and when the petitioner expressed his desire to be appointed on that post on deputation proposal was given by Rural Road Development Department for appointment of the petitioner on the post of Superintending Engineer on deputation, the PWD accorded its approval. Thereupon, the petitioner after undergoing process of appointment, was appointed as Superintendent Engineer in the Rural Road Development Agency for one year extendable up to maximum period of five years on 5.11.2012, which fact was subsequently reiterated under order dated 23.11.2012, which order got approval of the parent department which is evident from order as contained in letter dated 22.11.2012 (Annexure-P/12). Still the respondent passed an order on 20.2.2013, much before a year, terminating the deputation of the petitioner to Rural Road Development and Panchayati Raj Department, which is quite illegal as no reason has been assigned as to why before completion of the period of deputation, deputation has been terminated. On this count alone the impugned order dated 28.2.2013 suffers from illegality in view of the decision rendered in the case reported in Union of India through Govt. of Pondichery & Anr. Vs. V. Ramakrishnan & Ors. (2005) 8 SCC 394 wherein the Hon’ble Court has been pleased to hold that when a 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, unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance. But even where the tenure is not specified, an order of reversion can be questioned when the same is mala-fide. 11. Thus, it was submitted that in view of the aforesaid decision the impugned order dated 28.2.2013 (Annexure P/1) in WP (C) No. 175 of 2013 cannot be sustained in law. Further it was submitted that once the said impugned order is held to be bad, the order dated 12.3.2015 consequently passed, as contained in Annexure P/1 in WP (C) No. 190 of 2013 repatriating the petitioner to the parent department, would be bad. 12. Mr. Further it was submitted that once the said impugned order is held to be bad, the order dated 12.3.2015 consequently passed, as contained in Annexure P/1 in WP (C) No. 190 of 2013 repatriating the petitioner to the parent department, would be bad. 12. Mr. Rarry, further submits that the impugned order dated 28.2.2013 on being found prima facie bad, was stayed by this Court vide order dated 12.3.2013, which order was communicated to the authority, on whose behalf endorsement of receiving was put in, still the authority passed order on 12.3.2013 repatriating the petitioner to the parent department and thereby the authority by disobeying the order passed by this Court has made themselves liable to be proceeded under the Contempt of Courts Act. 13. Mr. Debendra, learned GA appearing for the State submits that the order dated 23.11.2012 under which petitioner has been promoted by the borrowing department on the post of Superintending Engineer had been stayed by this Court on 30.1.2013 in a writ application bearing WP (C) No. 40 of 2913 and in that event an order was passed on 28.2.2013 whereby the deputation of the petitioner was terminated and under the circumstance it can be said that there had been a justifiable reason on the part of the State authority to pass such order and in such situation, it never warrants to be quashed. At the same time, it was stated that since the deputation of the petitioner had been terminated the authority was bound to pass a consequential order of repatriating the petitioner to the parent department which was passed on 12.3.2013 without having knowledge that order dated 28.2.2013, under which the deputation of the petitioner had been terminated, has been stayed by the Hon’ble Court. Had the authority been in knowledge of that order the authority would not have passed the consequential order. Since the said order has been passed without knowing that order terminating the deputation of the petitioner has been stayed, the respondents cannot be said to have disobeyed the order passed by this Court wilfully and, thereby contempt petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. Mr. Since the said order has been passed without knowing that order terminating the deputation of the petitioner has been stayed, the respondents cannot be said to have disobeyed the order passed by this Court wilfully and, thereby contempt petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP (C) No. 40 of 2013 submits that application has been filed on behalf of the four petitioners but three got retired and thereby the writ application would be confined to only one petitioner who is not concerned with the order relating to cancellation of the deputation, rather the concern is that the petitioner of the other two writ petitions has wrongly been promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer in the Rural Road Development Agency as he had never been in regular service of Executive Engineer, whereas, the Rule namely, PWD/ PHED/IFCD/Electricity/M.I., Manipur, (Superintending Engineer (Civil)/Superintending Surveyor of Works) Recruitment Rules, 1992, under which the petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer, does prescribe that one should be in regular service of Executive Engineer for six years for being promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer on deputation. But the authority by ignoring the said Rule, promoted the petitioner to the post of Superintending Engineer, though his substantive post in the parent department was Section Officer and had never been Executive Engineer and thus, it was submitted that when the petitioner had not been fulfilling the eligibility, promotion of the petitioner to the post of Superintending Engineer is absolutely bad. Learned counsel made it clear that the Court needs to be gone into in this issue only when it is found that the order relating to termination of deputation is bad. However, if it is found that order of termination is absolutely justified then the Court needs not to advert to the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 15. Thus, the sole question which does arise for consideration as to whether the order dated 28.2.2013, Annexure P/1 to the writ petition bearing WP (C) No. 175/2013, is sustainable in law or not? 16. It be stated that in the year 2005 while the petitioner was serving in the Public Works Department as Section Officer, his services was placed at the disposal of Commissioner, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj. 16. It be stated that in the year 2005 while the petitioner was serving in the Public Works Department as Section Officer, his services was placed at the disposal of Commissioner, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj. He continued to work there until 21.11.2008 when he was again repatriated to the parent department. On 27.3.2010 at the instance of the Minister, Rural Development, may be on account of efficiency of the petitioner, services of the petitioner was again placed at the disposal of the Commissioner, Rural Development & Pahchayati Raj for appointment as Surveyor of Works/Executive Engineer until further order. Thereupon, he was appointed on 24.8.2010 as Surveyor of Works/Executive Engineer in Rural Road Development Agency. Subsequently, when three posts of Superintending Engineers were created in the department of Rural Road Development Agency, to be filled up on deputation, it was communicated by the Rural Road Development Agency to the Chief Engineer, PWD that the petitioner is intending to be appointed as Superintending Engineer on deputation in the Rural Road Development Agency. Thereupon, approval to the deputation of three engineers of PWD was accorded. On getting such approval from the department of PWD, the petitioner was appointed on deputation as Superintending Engineer, MSRRDA for a period of one year and thereupon, Joint Secretary (RD & PR) wrote a letter on 5.11.2015 (Annexure P.11) to the Principal Secretary, Works Department, requesting therein to place the services of the petitioner, at the disposal of the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department. Accordingly, Deputy Secretary, Works, wrote a letter dated 22.11.2012 (Annexure P/12) communicating therein the Additional Secretary, RD & PR, regarding approval of the placement of services in the following terms: “I am directed to convey approval to place the services of Shri S. Gopendro Singh, Section Officer, PWD, Manipur, presently working as in-charge Assistant Surveyor of Works, PWD, Manipur, at the disposal of Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Manipur.” 17. It appears that just on the other day, on 23.11.2012, Additional Secretary, RD & PR, vide its letter dated 23.11.2012 (Annexure P/13) passed an order for repatriating the petitioner to its parent department. In spite of such order being passed relating to repatriation, the Additional Chief Secretary, RD & PR, simultaneously passes an order of appointing the petitioner as Superintending Engineer for a period of one year on deputation. In spite of such order being passed relating to repatriation, the Additional Chief Secretary, RD & PR, simultaneously passes an order of appointing the petitioner as Superintending Engineer for a period of one year on deputation. This appears to be strange for the reason that as soon as the Additional Chief Secretary, RD & PR passes the order relating to repatriation of the petitioner to the parent department, he loses his authority to pass an order for appointment on the post of Superintending Engineer. However, submission which was advanced on behalf of the petitioner, by referring to the order dated 20.2.2013 that when the petitioner upon deputation had been appointed for one year extendable to five years, respondent should not have terminated the deputation in view of the decision rendered in the case of Union of India through Govt. of Pondichery & Anr. (supra). Their Lordships in the facts and circumstance of the case has been pleased to hold as under: “32. 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, unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance. But, even where the tenure is not specified, an order of reversion can be questioned when the same is mala-fide. An action taken in a post-haste manner also indicates malice. (See Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil vs. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia, (2004) 2 SCC 65 , para 25)” 18. Thus, it has been held that that when the tenure of deputation is specified ordinarily the term of deputation should not be curtailed except on such just ground, as for example, suitability, unsatisfactory performance etc. 19. (See Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil vs. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia, (2004) 2 SCC 65 , para 25)” 18. Thus, it has been held that that when the tenure of deputation is specified ordinarily the term of deputation should not be curtailed except on such just ground, as for example, suitability, unsatisfactory performance etc. 19. In that case, the first respondent had been appointed on deputation as Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department, Government of Pondichery on short term deputation/ temporary basis pending selection of regular incumbent by the Public Works Commission. After the deputation of respondent No. 1, the Government of Pondichery, instead of requesting the UPSC to constitute DPC for taking up the matter relating to promotion to the post of Chief Engineer, the Govt. of Pondichery made request to the UPSC to regularise the service of one person as Chief Engineer from the date of his ad hoc promotion. On account of that the first respondent was repatriated to his parent department. Thus it is apparent that the deputation was for the period till regular incumbent on being selected by UPSC is appointed, but before regular selection was made one person was appointed as Chief Engineer on adhoc basis consequent upon which the first respondent was repatriated to the parent department though the period in terms of the deputation order was till the regular appointment is made. 20. But here in the instant case, as is evident from the facts recorded earlier that the Joint Secretary, RD & PR, upon petitioner being appointed as Superintending Engineer, wrote to the parent department for placing the services of the petitioner at the disposal of the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department for a period of one year extendable to maximum period of five years. On such request being made, the Deputy Secretary, Works, simply granted approval for placing the services of the petitioner at the disposal of RD & PR Department without fixing terms of deputation. However, on the very next day, the Additional Chief Secretary, RD & PR passed an order on 23.11.2012 whereby the petitioner was repatriated to the parent department. On such request being made, the Deputy Secretary, Works, simply granted approval for placing the services of the petitioner at the disposal of RD & PR Department without fixing terms of deputation. However, on the very next day, the Additional Chief Secretary, RD & PR passed an order on 23.11.2012 whereby the petitioner was repatriated to the parent department. Only upon such order being passed the parent department cancelled/terminated the deputation of the petitioner to the borrowing department and as such, it cannot be said that the respondent without there being any reason has passed the impugned order and at the same time the plea is also not available to the petitioner that the deputation period has been curtailed as it has already been recorded that the parent department while giving approval to the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Superintending Engineer on deputation has not spelt out about the period of deputation. Moreover, the authority of borrowing department who has passed the order of repatriation has never been alleged to have passed the order with mala-fide intention. Under the circumstances, I do not find any illegality with the impugned order dated 28.2.2013, subject matter of WP (C) No. 175 of 2013 and the consequential order dated 12.3.2013, subject matter of WP (C) No. 193 of 2013, which never call for any interference. 21. For the said reason I need not to go into the issue which has been raised in WP (C) No. 40 of 2013 in view of the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner of that writ application. 22. So far as contempt petition is concerned, it be stated that it is the case of the petitioner that when operation of the impugned order dated 28.2.2013 had been stayed by this Court on 12.3.2013, still the authority did pass an order on 12.3.2013 repatriating the petitioner to the parent department. Both those orders are of the same date but it has never been placed before me that the authority after knowing the order passed by this Court has passed the order on 12.3.2013. In such event, it cannot be said that the authority did pass the order purposely and knowingly to frustrate the order of this Court. Accordingly, no case of contempt is made out. 23. Under the circumstances, the WP (C) Nos. In such event, it cannot be said that the authority did pass the order purposely and knowingly to frustrate the order of this Court. Accordingly, no case of contempt is made out. 23. Under the circumstances, the WP (C) Nos. 175 and 190 of 2013 and Cont Case (C) No. 121 of 2014 are dismissed, whereas WP (C) No. 40 of 2013, MC (WP (C)) No. 205 of 2015 and MC (WP (C) No. 216 of 2015 stand disposed of.