.^ '^ '^.. /n\. .^^ ^ '/\yy /)p/^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (Sl No. 7178 of2008 Petitioner O. P. Sharma Versus -^ Respondents State of Chhattisgarh 85 others Post for Judgment on ^.°r day ofApril, 2009 ^ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^S.^.^vw^ ^^—^.^^ ^"•-\ ^.' t- ^'1^1. I HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Petitioner Writ Petition (S) No. 7178 of 2008 O. P. Sharma, S/o Late Shri B. P. Shukla, aged about 55 years, R/o Village & Post Pali, Tahsil Pali, District Korba (CG) Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Collector, Tribal Welfare, Korba, District Korba (CG) Collector-cum-District Mission Director, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Korba, District Korba (CG) Block Education Officer, Pali, Tahsil Pali, District Korba (CG) Tamreshwar Prasad Upadhyay, Lecturer, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Chaitma, District Korba (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION QFINDIA Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri ArvindDubey, Panel Lawyerforthe respondents No. 1 to 4. Shri Anoop Majumdar, Advocate with Shri K. S. Pawar, Advocate for the respondent No.5. JUDGMENT (Passed on this ^ dayof April, 2009) 1. By this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constltution of India, the petitioner impugns the validity of the order dated 15.12.2008 (Annexure P/1), passed by the Collector and District Mission Director, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Korba, whereby the services of the petitioner (Shri O. P. Sharma) was repatriated to his parent department and the respondent No.5 (Shri Tamreshwar Prasad Upadhyay) was posted at Pali, where the petitioner was working on deputation. \ 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that by order dated 11.10.1976 the petitioner was initially appointed as Lower Division Teacher in Tribal Welfare Department. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Upper Division Teacher. In the year 2006-2007 the petitioner was working on the post of Upper Division Teacher at Middle School, Silli, Block - Pali. After obtaining the consent of the petitioner, by order dated 28.7.2007 (Annexure P/5) the petitioner was posted on deputation as Block Resource Coordinator in Rajiv Gandi Shiksha Mission, Block Pali, District Korba. This order dated 28.7.2007 (Annexure P/5) was challenged by one Shri N. K. Sharma by filing Writ Petition (S) No. 4729/2007, which was disposed of by order dated 18.6.2008 (Annexure P/8). Since 18.7.2008 (Annexure P/10) the petitioner was working as Block Resource Coordinator in Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Misssion at Pali. 3. By the impugned order dated 15.12.2008 (Annexure P/1), passed by the Collector and District Mission Director, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Korba, the services of the petitioner was repatriated to his parent department and he was posted in Govt. Middle School, Behrachua. By the same order the respondent No.5 was posted on deputation at Pali, where the petitioner was working. 4. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying on the judgment and order dated 27.3.2008, passedby this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 3997 of 2007 (Radhe Lal Nag Vs. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh & others), would submit that as per the circular dated 2.12.1988 the services of the petitioner cannot be repatriated without consent of both the parties and the employee concerned. 5. Shri Arvind Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 4 would fairly submit that in accordance with the circular dated 2.12.1988, initially the period of deputation should be two years. The B— circular is in the nature of guidelines to the concerned departments, where the government servants were repatriated before completing a period of two years. The same cannot be done, without consent of the employee, the parent department as well as the borrowing department. 6. Shri Arioop Majumdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 would submit in opposition ofthe petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the pleadings appended thereto. Admittedly, in the present case it is evident that the petitioner was sent on deputation by order dated 28.7.2007. Subsequently, by order dated 15.12.2008 the deputation was cancelled and the petitioner was repatriated back to the parent department before a minimum period oftwo years. 8. As per the circular dated 2.12.1988in normal cases the minimum period of deputation is two years, which can be extended for a period of four years. Hon'ble Supreme Courtin State of Punjab and others Vs- Inder Singh and others1 has considered the 'deputation' and 'repatriation' to the parent cadre/department on expiry of period of deputation, wherein it was held that "There can be no deputation without the consent of the person so deputed and he would, therefore,know his rights and privileges in the deputation post." 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umapati Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar and another2 has defined (deputation' in the following terms:- "Deputation can be aptly described as an assignment of an employee (commonly referred to as the deputationist) of one department or cadre or even an organization (commonly referred to as the parent department or lending authority) to another department or cadre or organization (commonly referred to as the borrowing authority). The necessity for sending on deputation arises in public interest to meet the exigencies of public service. 1(1997)8SCC372 2 (1999)48.c.c. 659 v The concept of deputation is consensual and involves a voluntary decision of the employer to lend the services of his employee and a corresponding acceptance of such service by the borrowing employer. It also involves the consent of the employee to go on deputation or not." 10. This issue of repatriation from deputation before completion of two years came into consideration before this Court in Radhe Lal Nag (supra), wherein this Court having considered all the aspects of the matter observed as under:- " 10. In view of the foregoing, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled to remain on deputation for a minimum period of two years from the date of his joining in the borrowing department i.e. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission. The services of the petitioner cannot be repatriated before two years, without consent of the petitioner/employee concerned. Thus, the impugned order is bad and contrary to the circular dated 2.12.1988." 11. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is allowed to the above extent that the petitioner shall continue on deputation for a minimum period of two years from the date of his joining pursuant to the orderdated 28.7.2007. The impugned order dated 15.12.2008 (Annexure P/1), in regard to the petitioner is quashed. No order asto costs. Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge