IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No. 8460/2008 Decided on:14.12.2010 _____________________________________________ Tek Chand. …Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Raj Pal Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No. 2 and 3. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner was posted as Kanungo in the office of Naib Tehsildar, Settlement, Duler, District Una. He was sent on deputation vide Annexure A-1 dated 8.8.1996. Respondent- Board started paying him 10% deputation allowance. Thereafter the recovery of the deputation allowance was 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 started in easy installments from the month of February, 2002. 2. Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan has strenuously argued that the petitioner had been sent on deputation to the respondent-Board and he was entitled to deputation allowance till he has worked in the respondent-Board. 3. Mr. Shashi Shirshu and Mr. P.M. Negi have vehemently argued that since the maximum period the petitioner could work on deputation basis, i.e. two years ended in June, 1998, he was not entitled to deputation allowance @ 10% thereafter. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. In fact, petitioner started working on deputation with effect from 10.6.1996 in the respondent-Board though formal orders were issued on 8.8.1996. He was also paid 10% deputation allowance. Neither the parent department nor the borrowing department has taken any decision to repatriate the petitioner. Petitioner kept on discharging his duties on deputation basis. Rather, it is evident from Annexure A-8 that the competent authority has extended the period of deputation from 10.6.1997 to 9.6.2002. Once the extension has been granted on 15.7.2002 from 10.5.1997 to 3 9.6.2002, the petitioner was entitled to 10% deputation allowance. Petitioner, in no way, can be faulted for discharging his duties in the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board. It was either for the parent department or the borrowing department to take a decision to repatriate the petitioner. In these circumstances, duty was not cast upon the petitioner to get himself repatriated. The fact that the petitioner had been permitted to work in the borrowing Department suggests that there was work available in the borrowing Department, where the petitioner was sent on deputation. Once the petitioner has been sent on deputation and he has not been repatriated in accordance with law, he was entitled to deputation allowance. It is evident from the instructions on the subject that in exceptional cases, the deputation can also be for five years. It is on the basis of these instructions that the decision (Annexure A-8) has been taken on 15.7.2002 to grant permission to the petitioner to remain on deputation for the period 10.6.1997 to 9.6.2002. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-2 and A-5 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the amount, which has been deducted from the salary of the petitioner with a further 4 direction to pay the petitioner remaining deputation allowance till the petitioner had worked on deputation with the respondent-Board within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 14.12.2010 *awasthi*