IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 280 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 01/02/2008 in WP NO : 23083 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Dr.K. Satyanarayana, S/o. Late Rangaiah, Gandhi Naturopathic Medical College, Former Secretary, A.P. Yogadhyayana Parishad, Begumpet, (PO), Hyderabad - 500 016. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Government of A.P., rep by its Ex-Officio Secretary to Government, Health Medical & Family Welfare Department, L-Block, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500 001. 2 The Commissioner, Department of AYUSH, 5th Floor APGLI Building, Thilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad - 500 001. 3 A.P. Yogadhyayana Parishad, Rep by its Chairman, Governing Council, L-Block, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500 001. 4 Sri M. Venkat Reddy, Plot No. 84, 8th Cross Street, Trimurthy Colony, Mahendra Hills, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.A.SURYANARAYANA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMI.WELFARE The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) The appellant who worked for about 11 years on deputation as Secretary of Respondent No.3 has been aggrieved by an order, whereby he has been repatriated to his parent department. While challenging the order passed by the learned single Judge, whereby the petition was dismissed, the learned Advocate has argued that certain observations against the appellant have been made by the learned single Judge. We do not find any substance in the said statement for the reason that the learned single Judge has simply reproduced some of the allegations, which have been leveled against the appellant-petitioner in the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents. The case of the appellant before this Court is that he was given appointment as Secretary of respondent No.3. We are not in agreement with the said statement for the reason that a bare perusal of order dated 17-1-1996 passed by respondent No.1 reveals that the appellant was sent on deputation. Para 5 of the said order reads as under: “ The Officer so appointed in para 4 above will carry his own scale of pay and also in the event of his promotion in his present department carry the scale of the promoted post.” This para clearly denotes that the appellant was sent on deputation to work as Secretary of respondent No.3 and he was never given regular appointment as Secretary of respondent No.3. In the circumstances, the order dated 31-8-2007 whereby the appellant has been repatriated cannot be considered to be improper or illegal because it is always for the respondents-authorities to repatriate an employee who was sent on deputation. For the aforestated reasons, we do not find any substance in the appeal and the same is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 25th March, 2008 GRR To 1. 2.2 CD copies