^ HiGHCOURTOFUUDIGATURECHHATTtSGARH^BILASroiR SingleBench: Kon'bieSlinsatishK.Agnlhotn.J. Petitioner Writ Petition (S) No.3380 of 2008 _ U. K. Tiwari, S/o Shri R. N. Tiwari, aged about 44 years, OccupationServfce, presently posted as ^tt. Grade-!!! in Rural Engineering sen/ices, Rto Ghandanjapara, Janjgir, Distt. >Jarygir- Champa<C.G;) Versus Respondente 1 2. State of Chhattisgarh, throligh Secretaiy, Panchayat and Rurai Devslopment, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan,Raipur<C^3^ The Secretary, Water R^ources Department, Mantralaya,D,K.S.Bhawan,Raipur(C.G^ Executive Engineer Rural Engineering Seroces DivisionJarvgir,Distt.Janjgir-Champa(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARtlCI-E 226/227 OF THE GO!kiST'!TUTiO'3SF iN@!A Shri indrasen Sahu, Advocats for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Depufy Advocate Genera! for 8ie respondsnts. ORALORDER (PasssdpRthis 2nd dayofJuiy, 2098) 1. The pefitjoner chailanges the validJiy of the order dated 21.5.2(K)8 ^- "• :•' ••"'•• .• "• ".. •• '•'"';.;'.; ....•.• - ' '•." •'. • .'.'•.'• '' •-.• ' :•"• • •:•'- .-•'.. .•••' .".• (Annexure P/1), whereby, the pstitKiner, who was on deputation, has been recafledbythepaFsntdspartmsnt. . 2. Leamed counset appearing for the peStionsr submite thafr the petitioner was initially appointect in the VteterResQurc^ Dspartment as A^Jstant Grade-111. Vjda orderdated 8.11.1995 the^ petitioner was sent on deputation in ths Rural EnginesringServis^Department.Qntieery.the ''^ "^ /. lisBI"-^ L:M :sa!tt .sssSSSfSSS^SsaS 2 ;SE%% \> petitioner is not in a position to produce either the deputation order or the sbsorptionorder. 3. Leamed counsel appearing for ttie respondente submjts ftat absorptfon order was never passed andthe petitioner hascompleted his senrice on deputation for more ffian 13 years. Now the services of the pstitioner have been withdrawnback ta the parent department. 4. It is well settled princjple of !aw at an smployee has n6 rightto the deputation forever. ^te the parent department of the petitioner is Water Resources Department, the empioyer has every rightto recall back Ihe services of the petitionsr to the parent department after completion of reasonabtetime. 5. Having considered al! the papers filed with the petition and the submissions made by the partiss, Ido not find any irregutarity in the impugned order. Thys, no inteFference is warranted witt the impugned order. 6. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Thakur ^sr aiow ^ nii