Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 546 (ALL)

Raghvendra Pratap Singh v. State of U. P.

2021-06-11

AJIT KUMAR

body2021
ORDER : 1. Heard Sri. Samarth Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Abhishek Srivastava appearing for Nagar Panchayat, respondent no. 6 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.4.2021 passed by the Chairman, Nagar Panchayat, Tola Bazar, Gorakhpur whereby direction has been issued to the petitioner that since his deputation in the Nagar Panchayat Department has come to an end, he should report back to his parent department. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that though the deputationist may not have a right to continue on deputation in the department under deputation and has to report back to his parent department, but once an order was passed by the Director, Local Bodies, State of U.P. giving him posting on deputation, the Chairman of the concerned Nagar Panchayat was not justified in passing an order terminating his deputation and that too casting stigma upon petitioner by observing that his act and conduct and reporting in the office on time was not proper and, therefore, work got adversely affected. 4. Sri. Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the Nagar Panchayat has submitted that the petitioner is a deputationist and does not have a right to continue on deputation once the deputation has come to an end. He submits that initially he was sent on deputation to the department of Nagar Panchayat by the Director, Local Bodies in the year 2019 for a period of one year, which was later on further extended for another period of one year only and submits that after the expiry of that extended period, petitioner did not possess any indefeatable right to continue on the post under deputation. He has also placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Indar Singh, 1998 SCC (L&S) 34 in which vide paragraph no. 9 it has been held that the deputationist does not have any right to continue on the post under deputation after the deputation has come to an end. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the salary has also not been paid to the petitioner ever since the order has come to be passed by respondent no. 6. 6. Sri. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the salary has also not been paid to the petitioner ever since the order has come to be passed by respondent no. 6. 6. Sri. Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the contesting respondent has further argued that once respondent no. 6 relieved the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be said to be under respondent no. 6 and should report back to his parent department and claim salary there. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the arguments raised across bar, the only question is that in the event deputation of the petitioner was only for a period of one year initially in the year 2019 when he was directed to be posted in the department of Nagar Panchayat as directed by the Director, Local Bodies and as the impugned order also showed that the time of deputation was further extended for another period of one year only, whether the petitioner could have continued on a deputation, even after the expiry of the deputation period. 8. Law is well settled that the petitioner does not have any indefeatable right to continue on the post under deputation and even under deputation the authority can ask him to report back to his parent department. The question of passing the order for repatriation by the competent authority insofar as the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the Court is of the view that the deputation since was for a fixed period, no further order was required to be passed specifically directing the petitioner to report back to his parent department. This question would have arisen only when the deputation was to be discontinued midterm, which is not the case here. Once deputation time prescribed for is over or lapses and the officer under whom deputationist is working, relieves him, deputationist stands repatriated to his parent department. Deputation does not create any right to enjoy lien against the post under deputation. The right to lien vests in relation to the parent post in the parent department unless there is a case of absorption of a deputationist in the department of deputation by a competent authority. 9. Deputation does not create any right to enjoy lien against the post under deputation. The right to lien vests in relation to the parent post in the parent department unless there is a case of absorption of a deputationist in the department of deputation by a competent authority. 9. Insofar as passing of the remark under order impugned is concerned, the Court is of the view that this observation would only be seen as a passing observation and will not affect the service career of the petitioner under any circumstance. So far as the payment of salary part is concerned, the petitioner can always give a representation before the competent authority while joining before the parent department and in case any such representation is made claiming salary, the same shall be sympathetically considered and appropriate order for payment of salary shall be passed because petitioner has continued and discharged his duties in the department under deputation and no proceeding has been drawn against him. 10. Subject to the aforesaid observation and direction the Court declines to interfere with the order impugned and the petition stands dismissed.