lilll' ^ H!GHCOURTOF,JUDIGATUREeHHATnSQARH:BILASPUR Singte BenGh: Hon'bleSliri Satish K. AgRihotri, .1. PetiUoner Wri{Petiti6n(S)No.337Sof 2008 R. R. Sahu, S/o Shri Ramu Ram Sahu, aged about SOyears, Occupation Serv'ice, presenUy posted as Astt. Grade-tlt in Rural Engineering seryices, R/o Hasdsv Vihar Cotony, GAD-H/14, Janjgir,{3jstt.Jarugir-Champa(C/3J Versu; Respondente 1. 2. 3. State of Chhattiggarh, through Secratary, Panchayat and Rural Devetopment, Marrtralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan.Raipur (C.G.) The Secretary, Water Resowces Department, Mantraiaya, Q.K.S. Bhawan.Rsipur (C.G-) ExeGufive Engineer Rura! EngineeringServfces Dhrfsion Janjgir, Distt, Janjgir-Champa ^3.G.) ^- WRTT PETmON UNDERARTICLE 226Q27 OF THE y^SSTlTOl »(Bbfs!ND!A Shri Indrasen Sahu; Advoeatel'or ttieseUtiOn^. Shri Yashwant Sj%h Thakuf. Depu^^ Adwx^ (Seneral^^^^^^^ respondente. ORALORDER (Passedonthis 2nd dayofJuly, 2008) 1. The(sstitionerimptignsthevaltdity<rftheQrderdated21.5.2008(Annexure F"1), whsreby, Uie pstitioner, wtwvsas ondeputation, has been recalted bythe parent department. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the pgtitioner sybmite thaf the peBtioner was initially appointsd in the Water Rsisources Dspsrtmerrt asjtesistant Grade-tll. Vide OKler datsd 8.11.1995 the petitioner was sent on eputation in ths Rurat Engine^ring Sei'vices Department.On qyery, the ££-? yr petitioner is not in a position to produce either the deputation order or the absorption order. 3. Learned counssl appeanng for the respondentssubmitethat absorption orcier was never passed and the peStioner has completsd his senrice on dsputatJoRformorethanlSyears.Nowtheservicesofthepetitionerhave been withdrawn back te the parent department. 4. It is we!l setSed principte of law that an emptoyee has no right to ttie dsputation forever. te the parent dspartment of the petitfoner js Watsr Resourcss Dspartmsnt, the smployerhas every rightto recalt back the services of the petitionsr to the parent dspartment after completion of reasonabte tims. 5. Having corisidered af! the papera filed with the petition and the submissions mads by the parties, I do not find any jrregularity in the impugned order. Thus, no interference is warranted with the impygned order. 6. The petition js accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Th&i<ur ^<,^a"u* s-^S^ L^. ^f.-