31 c^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ./ Writ Petition No. ......T.^."./..2003 Ti.^J. PETITIONER ^ RESPONDENTS /^^ J.§^ T : / Ram Karan Chouhan / Aged about 56 years S/o Late Shri Raghunath Chouhan, R/o Village Gothanpur, Fundudihari, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja. VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Environment and Nagriya Vikas Vibhag, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. ^^^^ 2. Director, ^ \.^^y ^<^Q^ Nagriya Prashasan and Vikas .^y^ >^^ Directorate, Raipur. 3. Chief Municipal Officer Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja 4. Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat, Bagbahra Distt. Mahasamund. 5. President Nagar Palika ^ Ambikapur Distt. Surg^ja. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLB 226/227 OF CONSTITUTiGN OF iNDIA XI-HC-22 3^ •^NKrl-4, ^>tl1^|(i, fc|dW^< 311^1 M^ich ^ll^^ll ?b^ich -—•—--•--- ^ 2003 ^^-^-----^^-- __^^'— W^T^T f^TW3Tr^T ^TW^rf?^ ^TT^T ^cTTW ^f?cf 20.9.2006 Shri Manoj Paranjape, counsi Shri Sushil Dubey, Gov< respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, and respondents No. 3 and 5. None for respondent No.4. Heard finally with the consenl Order dictated as follows: OkAL ORDER The petitioner, who was Inspector in the establishment of Sarguja, has challenged the validityj 8), issued by the Govemment rega^ orcter, Annexure P-8, the services o|T temporarily transferred from Panchayat.Bagbahra on deputatior|. The petitioner has taken thi| order of deputation by the State petitioner was obtained nor any Municipal Councit Ambikapur (par€|nt from the Nagar Panchayat, Bagbah| The reply of Nagar Pancha^at been filed in this case. Vide pa| specffically mentioned that no pricji <^i^fci41Ti ^i^<-iT^:teT<ft<Ri^di ^3Tf^TW^T (j for the petitioner. rnment Advocate for the State/ Shri Saurabh Sharma, Advocates for oftheparties. (120.9.2006) Iworking as an Assistant Revenue l^unicjpal Councii, Ambikapur, District- of order dated 6.2.2003 (Annexure P- 1-ding his deputation. By the aforesaid the petitioner has been directed to be Murtidpal Council Ambikapur to Nagar ground that before passing such an Gjovernment, nejther the consent of the lconsent was taken either from the department or lending authority) or 1-a (borrowing authority). t, Bagbahra (respondent No.4) has (•a 4 of the reply. it has been very |r consent was obtained by the State XI-HC-22 75ST ^l^Krl^, s$Tny<l6, (c|cniy^< ^ L. 3<1^1 ^ach C/^-p -7 g^, <4 l+<^l $b^icb ^^-/^^/^Y<r*4^ ^ 200"? f^g; ^TT^T^T f^Tr^3Tl^T ^TWfff?cT 3:TI^T ?^<TTW ^rf^T Government from the said Nagar| respondents are concerned, no replyj It is submitted by learned cou< of the petitioner are governed b'| Employees (Recruitment and Condit| said Rules, there is no provision of the petitioner, as well as the cas^olj ^N^frT W^ff ^ te<^ ^TCTT ^3:rf^T3TI^T Panchayat. So far as the other has been filed on their behajf. ^sel for the petitioner that the servjces the provisions of C.G. Munidpal |ons ofService Rutes) 1968 and in the ^eputation ete., therefore, the case of other employees would be governed the general principles in this r^gard as the deputation is also an jncidence of service. He refers to th' Court jn connection with deputation. In the matter of State of Pun others. 1997 AIR SCW 3949, it has two decisions rendered by the Apex ab and others Vs. Jnder Sinah and concept of "deputation" is well un recognized meaning. 'Deputation' law and the dictionary meaning of tl simple words 'deputation' means se |been held by the Apex Court that the yerstood in service law and has a ^as a different connotation jn-service ^e word 'deputation' is of no hejp. in tvice outside the cadre or outside the parent department. Deputation is d^puting or transfemng an employee to a post outside his cadre, that is ^o say, to another department on a temporary basis. After the expiry p^riod of deputation the employee has to come back to his parent departmejnt to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhjte he has earned pr^motion in his parent department as per Recruitments Rules. Whether tl|ie transfer is outside the normal field of deployment or not is decided by fhe authority who controls the service or post from which the employee| is transferred. There can be no deputationwithout the consent of t^e person so deputed and he would, therefore, know his rights and pnvile^es in the deputation post. XI-HC-22 3^T ^l^ld^l, ^Tfl^41(o, [^dJ1M^< 3TT^T 4^1 ch ITTR^TT^RT^)^..W,p.,.7ifc...^ ^ fd^ ^TI^T^T f^:rt^3:n^T 5bHicb^Tf?cT 3T[^T ??cTf8TC ^cr — ^^. In AIR 1999 SC 1948 in ttii h^s State of Bihar and another, it h|is that the deputation can be aptl^ emptoyee (commonly referred to g|s or cadre or even an organizationj department or lending authority)| organization (commonly referred necessity for sending on deputati^n exigencies of public service. The c^ involves a voluntary decision of th| employee and a corresponding borrowing employer. It also jnvolve^ deputation or not. After going through the abo\ conditions must be fulfllled before i there must be voluntt to lend the service of 1 ii. that there must be| services by the borrov| iii. there can be no of the said employee Apart from the above, the necessity for sendjng the exigencies to public services and tt is being sent on deputation. chi^?oi41ri w^ff ^ tel^t <Ri<-^i< ^3:rf^T3TT^T e matter of Umapati Choudharv Vs. been again helcf by the Apex Court described as an assignment of an the deputationist) of one department (commonly referred to as the parent to another department or cadre or :o as the borrowing authority). The an'ses in public interest to meet the )ncept of deputation is consensual and employer to lend the services of his acceptance of such sen/ices by the the consent of the employee to 90 on t^e said decisions, it is apparent that 3 p^issing an order on deputation i.e. ^ry decision of the parent department lis employee; corresponding acceptance of such l^ing employer; and depu|atjon of an employee without consent \o deputed. otKer circumstances are atso there as the emplo^ee on deputation j.e. to meet the (e time period, for which, an employee ; , XI-HC-22 3^T ^l^ld^, ^xfl^^Ko, I^^ty^< 3Tr^WTSr^' WH^\ $h^|ch 4---------- ^ 200"^ [d<b<^ 3TT^T^T f^t^)3TT^T 5b^i<=b^cT U^nit^ W^T ^rrw ^f^r — ^ — ^^w anid In the present case, none fulfilied by the State Government passed. A perusal of the impugne<|l petition would show that no consjsnt before passing the order of his de{ It atso appears that the consent o^ not been obtained in this case Government regarding the period opinion of this Court, the impugne^ regarding sending of a person orj sustained in the eyes of iaw, For the reasons stated ab< impugned order dated 6.2.2003 (4 the petitioner from Munlcipal Coijncil Bagbahra, is hereby quashed. jn the facts and circumstan4es as to cost. iof the above conditions have been and the impugned order has been order as well as the pleadings in the was obtained from the petitioner iutation as contained in Annexure P-8. the Nagar Panchayat, Bagbahra has no time etc. has been fixed by the jsf deputation of the petitioner. In the ti order does not fuffil! the requirement deputation and the same cannot be ^^rfer^ WT^ff ^ te^ rf^CT: ^3:rf^R'3:n^?T ive, the writ petition is allowed. The ^nnexure P-8) regarding deputation of ncil, Ambikapur to Nagar Panchayat, of the case, there shall be no order Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge (^^f^)