1g x" w‘IGLE ££NSH BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT PETITIONER / Mahesh Sahu, S/o Shri Shiv Nath Sahu, Aged about 48 years, Occupation Service, Presently Posted as Sub Inspector (Transport) Check Post Kamharpaii (Bhagat-Deori), District Mahasamund, C.G. RESPONDENTS Lgate of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of Transport, Ministry, D.K.S. Bhawan , Raipur (C.G.) / 2. Principal Secretary, Department of Home, D.K.S. Bhawan, Ministry Raipur, C.G. / 3. Additional Transport Commissioner, Raipur, C.G. BILASPUR WRIT PETITION is) No. g§0g [2011 VERSUS RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF W 91 www,m,W mmwrCwH.g. X 210/0 31mm (Wu) mmm agnmm WW§WW $Wm mmm ISB : Hon’ble 8hr! Manlndra Mohan Shrivastava J. " 30.9.201 1 Shri Hemant Kesharwani, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Chandresh Shrivasltava, Panel Lawyer for the State. Heard on admission. By this petition, the p 'oner has assailed the order dated 22.9.2011, by which the es of the petitioner have been repatriated to his parent de nt upon completion of 2 years of period of deputation. Learned cofmsel for th petitioner submits that the order of repatriation is illegal becaus the petitioner is entitled to continue on deputation and his de utation is liable to be extended,“ because number of other o cers, Who were sent on deputation, have been continued. He submits that this amounts to discrimination. Next subm‘ sion of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the matt r of issuing the order of repatriation, the circular issued on 2. 2.1988 (Annexure P-4) has been violated. He further submits that the impugied action is mala fide, because earlier the petitioner had filed a writ petition aggrieved by frequent transfer orders, in which, interim order was e "u s p e o XI-HC—78 WWW,W§,W Wm 111200 WW m (Wu) WWW aimmm mmam WW WW *2, *aimm passed in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, for this reason, the petitioner’s deputation has not been continued and he has been repatriated. It is not in dispute that the period of deputation of the petitioneg was for a period of i, years. The petitioner has stated in the petition that before passing impugned order, no previous approval was obtained and the order has been passed without consultation and coordination The case of the peh‘h'oner seems to be founded on the premise that the petitioner has right to continue on deputation even beyond the‘ period of ieputation. Unless there is order extending the period of dep tion, the petitioner cannot claim continuance in the borrowi g department. To say that the repatriation, after expiry of e initial period, must have consent of both the departments, appears to be based on some administrative instructions. he deputation is based on the consent of lending departme t and bormwing department and the concerned employee. Th consent of the parent department was only for a period of 2 years. Therefore, in the absence of there being any hash consent between the parent and the borrowing department for extending further,the period of deputation, it XI-HG—78 EQ WWW,WW,W mm W200 WWW (Wu) WWW \ammm WWW WW§WW $mm Vlx \ could not be claimed as of right. Melely because some other employees have been continued and their period of deputation h extended. Once the period of o right to continue on deputation, much 1 g x?xanyWenforceable k H r for extension of deputation. In the absence of any such e orceable legal n‘ght, no writ of mandamus can be issued t direct respondent to extend the period of deputation of the etitioner. Moreover, there are no specific allegations of mala against any particular oliioer. No one has been impleaded as in his personal capacity. of this Court, the petition is without any merit. The sam deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. i t ‘ e p Therefore, in the op‘ Sd/-’ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ‘ as‘nbeén extended, the petitioner cannot claim that his n