C^ \'^^1 /^ BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARHl W.P. (S) No.^J^ of 2009 S.D. Dhruw, S/o Late Shri R.N. PETITIONER ^',.-• ^ ^•?:^.- c ^•^^•" ,,./^^.'.;-! ^•y^1" ^'.^"..,.--" ^ A-PU<1 ^- RESPONDENTS Dhruw, aged about 51 years,working as Sub Engineer at Janpad Panchayat Gariyaband Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1) State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur ^(C.G.) 2) State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. ^ Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Gariyaband, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. A^f HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) No. 7394 of2009 S.D.Dhmw. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State.' ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 17th day of December, 2009) With the consent of leamed counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard fmally. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 02.12.2009 (Annexure P/l) whereby the petitioner, posted on deputation at Janpad Panchayat, Gariyaband, District Raipur as Sub Engineer., has been repatriated to his parent department i.e. Water Resources Department. The indisputable facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is a Sub Engineer in Water Resources Department. The petitioner, vide order dated 16.3.2007, was sent on deputation to the Panchayat and Rural Development Department and was posted as Sub Engineer at Project Execution Unit No. 3, Pradhanmantri Gram Sadak Yojna, Baloda Bazar, Raipur. Thereafiter, the petitioner was posted at Gariyaband vide order dated 13.06.2007 (Annexure P/2). Under the rationalization scheme, the petitioner was again posted at Lailunga, District Raigarh vide order dated 01.10.2008 (Annexure P/3). Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(S) No. 261/2009 wherein by order dated 19.01.2009 (Annexure P/4), the co-ordinate Bench ofthis Court stayed the effect and operation ofthe order dated 01.10.2008 (Annexure P/3), till the next date of hearing. W.P.(S) No. 261/2009 was withdrawn by the petitioner on 10.07.2009. Accordingly, the same was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, vide the impugned order dated 02.12.2009 (Annexure P/l), the petitioner has been repatriated back to his parent department, which is contrary to the guidelines issued by the government vide its circular dated 02.12.1988 (Annexure P/5) as at the time ofpassing the impugned order, the consent ofboth the departments i.e. parent as well as borrowing department, has not been obtained. Shri Soni, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner sybmits that the impugned order has been passed only to harass the petitioner and the same has been passed with malafide intention under the political influence. Thus, this petition. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. Admittedly, in the present case, it is evident that the petitioner was sent on deputation by order dated 16.03.2007 and by order dated 02.12.2009 (Annexure P/l), the petitioner was repatriated back to the parent department after completion ofminimum period oftwo years. In Mohd Masood Ahmad \. State ofU.P. & Others , the Supreme Court observed as under: "8. Leamed counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned transfer order of the appellant from Muzaffamagar to Mawana, District Meerut was made at the instance of an MLA. On the other hand, it has been stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 that the appellant has been transferred due to complaints against him. In our opinion, even ifthe allegation of the appellant is correct that he was transferred on the recommendation of an MLA, that by itself would not vitiate the transfer order. Aflter all, it is the duty of the representatives of the people in the legislature to express the grievances of the people and if there is any complaint against an official the State govemment is certainly within its jurisdiction to transfer such an employee. There can be no hard-and-fast mle that every transfer at the instance of an MP or MLA would be vitiated. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of an individual case. In the present case, we see no infinnity in the impugned transfer order." (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 806 P'j 'w4^' ^ .^^y7 "^^^^^ ^ ^) 7. The law on deputation is very clear. The Supreme Court in State ofPunjab and others vs. Inder Singh and others2 while considering the deputation and repatriation to the parent cadre/department on expiry of period of deputation observed as under :- "18. The concept of "deputation" is well understood in service law and has a recognized meaning. "Deputation" has a different connotation in service law and the dictionary meaning ofthe word "deputation" is ofno help. In simple words "deputation" means service outside the cadre or outside the parent department. Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside his cadre, that is to say, to another department on a temporary basis. Afiter the expiry period of deputation the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he has eamed promotion in his parent department as per th.e Recmitment Rules. Whether the transfer is outside the normal field of deployment or not is decided by the authority who controls the ser^ice or post from which the employee is transferred. 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. The law on deputation and repatriation is quite settled as we have also seen in various judgments which we have referred to above............." 8. The Supreme Court in Umapati Choudhary v. State ofBihar and another3 has defined 'deputation' in the following terms:- "Deputation can be aptly described as an assignment ofan 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. 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 ser^ice by the borrowing employer. It also involves the consent ofthe employee to go on deputatioh or not.9' Further, in Kunal Nanda vs, Union of India and another , the Supreme Court observed as under: "6....The basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the person concerned can always and at any time be ^ 9. (1997) 8 SCC 372 (1999) 4 SCC 659 (2000) 5 SCC 362 /y^ B^H repatriated to his parent department to serve any substantive position therein atthe instance ofeither ofthe departments and there is no vested right in such a person to continue for long on deputation or get absorbed in the department to which he had gone on deputation...." 10. The Supreme Court in Prasar Bharti & Ors, vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors . observed that; "13. There exists a distinction between 'transfer' and 'deputation'. 'Deputation' connotes service outside the cadre or outside the parent department in which an employee is serving. Transfer\ however, is limited to equivalent post in the same cadre and in the same department. Whereas deputation would be a temporary phenomenon, transfer being antithesis must exhibit the opposite indications." 11. Applying the well settled principles oflaw on deputation to the facts ofthe case, continuation of the employees on deputation or repatriation on completion of deputation period does not depend on their consent. After completion of minimum period of deputation, the petitioner/employee may be repatriated back to the parent department. 12. In view of foregoing and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, no interference is warranted with the order dated 02.12.2009 (Annexure - P/l). Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. ^ Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Amit AIR 2007 SC 1269