IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18289 of 2008 SUKUMAR GUPTA SON OF LATE KALYAN KUMAR GUPTA, POSTED AS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, RESIDENT OF CIRCULAR ROAD, DANAPUR CANTONMENT, POLICE STATION DANAPUR, DISTRICT PATNA ………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI- 110001 2. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH THROUGH THEIR REGISTRAR, PATNA 3. DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, THROUGH THEIR REGISTRAR, 396, EAST BORING CANAL ROAD, PATNA- 800001 4. PRESIDING OFFICEDR, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, 396, EAST BORING CANAL ROAD, PATNA- 800001 ……………..RESPONDENTS. For the Petitioner : Mr. B.Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Kaushal Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Mr. Sudhir Singh, Assistant Solicitor General. ------------- 2. 16.01.2009 In this writ application, prayer of the petitioner is to quash the order dated 30th of June, 2008 passed in O.A.No. 696 of 2006 by the Patna Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby the challenge made by the petitioner to the order of repatriation had failed. Petitioner was an employee of the Air Headquarter, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi. He came on deputation to the Debt Recovery Tribunal as Recovery Inspector on 1.10.2001 initially for a period of one year, which was extended from time to time and ultimately repatriated by order dated 28th of October, 2006. The Central Administrative Tribunal found that the petitioner has been repatriated and relieved upon completion of five years terms of deputation and being a deputationist has no right to continue on the deputation post and, accordingly dismissed the application. 2 Mr. B.Choudhary, appears on behalf of the petitioner, whereas respondent Union of India is represented by Mr. Sudhir Singh, Assistant Solicitor General of India. Mr. Choudhary submits that the order repatriating the petitioner to the parent department was not communicated and though the petitioner is not averse to the repatriation but has difficulty in joining at the parent department. The difficulty presented is his own creation. It is not his case that the order of repatriation was not served on him. In fact, he had handed over the charge of post of Recovery Inspector on 26th of October, 2006. Even if we assume in favour of the petitioner that it was not sent to the parent department, petitioner could have gone to the parent department along with the order served on him. It seems that the petitioner did not intend to join the parent department and is creating a bogey for not joining there. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal is right in holding that the petitioner had no right to continue on the deputation post. We do not find any merit in the application and it is dismissed accordingly in limine. (Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, ACJ.) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) Narendra/ 3