IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 2518 of 2010 Date of Decision: 21.4.2011. Tilak Raj …Petitioner. Versus. H.P.Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and others … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents No. 1 and 2: Mr. Atul Jhingan, Advocate. For the Respondents No. 3 and 4: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral). 1. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner is a permanent employee of the H.P. Agro Industries Corporation. He was employed in the Corporation in the year 1984 as a Surveyor and was promoted as Junior Engineer on 6.8.1992. 2. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner was sent on secondment basis and worked in various departments in the State of Himachal Pradesh for many years. It also appears from the record that the Corporation had no objection to the petitioner being permanently absorbed in the State Government but the fact remains that the services of the petitioner were never permanently absorbed 2 in the State Government. The respondent-Corporation had not objected to the petitioner being sent on secondment basis to the State Government since it had no work of construction with it. Some time in the year 2009-2010 work was allotted to it and thereafter the Corporation issued orders directing that the petitioner be repatriated to its parent department. The petitioner challenged this order by means of this petition. No stay was granted and the petitioner in fact joined the parent department. 3. I have heard Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Atul Jhingan, learned counsel for the Corporation and Shri Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General for the State. 4. The prayer of Shri Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, is that the Corporation is in financial difficulty and is not paying the salary of its employee including the petitioner. Therefore, a direction be issued that the petitioner be sent on secondment basis to any other department of the State Government. Such a direction cannot be issued by this Court. Admittedly, the petitioner is a permanent employee of the Corporation. This Court cannot direct the Corporation to send the petitioner on secondment basis to the State Government. In case, the State Government is willing to accept and the Corporation is willing to send the petitioner on secondment basis obviously there can be no objection by any other party but the question is whether 3 this Court has jurisdiction to issue such a direction. In my opinion, no such direction can be issued compelling the principal employer to send its employee on deputation to some other department. 5. The next contention of Shri Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, is that salary has not been paid to his client. This is not the relief claimed by the petitioner and in case salary has not been paid to him then he may file a separate petition in accordance with law. 6. With these observations the present petition is rejected. No order as to costs. 21st April, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.