HIGHCOtJRTsORjCMHAI'ilSQ^Rl-IATBll.JltSPUR Wi-itPetition(SVN&.5563of20tQ PE-FlTIONER: Bisahu iRrasad Shukla,^ S/o tate GQverdhan'^PrasaclShukla.age 58 years, R/o Jagriti Chowfc Bagdeshi Para Navapara, Rajim, District Raipur(C©) —< Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. State of Ghhattisgarh,^^^ ^ ^ Secretary, Home (Transport) Department, DKSBh^waniRaipur Ghhattisgarh • Infrastructyre ;[36«e|g;girie! <!;orpor£ joFl,thrbugB ifs Mslnaging Director, CIDC, Ghari Qt\avK;Ravpw .:;::'"":':" :'':;'-: Deppt IVIanager, ChhattisgartT IhfrastruGture Develppment CorporatiOn Amanaka, Raipur Qffice of Tahsildar, Tahsil Rajim, Distrjct Raipur<CG) ^ Present: Shri R.K. Gupta, counselfbrthepetjtiQner. SHriYashwantSinghThakur,DeputyAdvc)Gate?Generalf6rlheState. Division Bench: H6n'bleiShri^DM^ii'encll'ailWlisMrSt& Mcm'Blie^l'trilllflNai-tEtiaiRaKar.flJJ. IOR.D_E^','-':::. ,::::,:.:;':;: : ;'• (24-9-2010) ^ The following orderoftheCourtwaspassedb^^^^^ Mishra, J 1. The petitionerwas employed as ConductQrinihe^T.P.StateK Cprporationand postedatRaipyrdepotiAftefre^^nizatJonof^ theSfate pfChhattisgarh, M.P.S.R.T.C.ceasedtofun^ ofRoadTransportandHighwaysand^HighWays,(^vemmentp^ notification dated 26 Deeember, 2002 in e^Feise Qf powers Gonfel^ sub-section (3) ofSection 58 ofthe M.R. Reorgahjzation Act,^2^ ^.•i'^-^'.^^'^s^ssls^^^^^ »i that MPSRTC Shall c^se to function^'^a^ [^cember, 2002. The State Governrnent vide ncrtificatiori dated 13^ Dec»mber, 2002 published in ofliaal gazette; aythorized the^^^ Infrastrycture Development CorporatiQn (for short 'CIDC') to teke over the assets, liabilities, rights and employees, cpnsequent to -the division^ of Madhya Pradesh State Road TranspQft Corporatibn. Itwas further notified Ihatserviceepnditionsoftheemployeestobetakenoyeronthesaiddivision, shall remain effecrtive in tlie Chhattjsgarh' InfrastmcAure De\ |opment Corporation as b^re. The management of assets and liabiliti^^^a^ rehabilitation ofthe eniployees shallbe dorieacCording to tlTe^^p^^ direction oftheStafeGoveromentissuedfromtimetotime. 2. Learned counsgl fbr thepetitioner sybmitted thatthe^petitionerwassenton deputatfon in the DistrictQffice, Korba byCIDCvideAnnexure-P/Sandheis presently postedjn the ofRce ofrespondent No,4as Assistant Grade-111. further argued that after the MPSRTC was abolished in the Stafe of Chhattisgarh, trte serviees of j:he petitioner stancl transferred to the Sta^ Goyernmeht and the GIDC is only a nodal ageney for the purposes of rehabilitation of the erstwhile eniployees of MPSRTC ineluding the petitioner. Beingclass-lllemployeeoftheStateGQVernment.hisageofsuperannuation c: •:•• '.::1'''-'''•:'•.;•"•:•::-'',:';:^ shouldbe60yeare,however,CIDCviyeitsmemc^.dated11-6-2Q1Q]m^ thepetitionerthatheshallberetiringon3Q"Septeimber,2^ the age of superannuation as per Rule 5& of GID@ (T'ransport S^ Employees Semee Rulesand his representation againstthe abOvedecisiQn of ftnnexure-P/11 was not considered and order of syperannuatidn of -,Annexure-P/12dated 17-9-2010 hasbeen issyed. j 'l p s- y •p91|nB^sq}OuuE3sssAQ|du.ia8i|^iOSuoii!puo383jAjas syt; BuiiO^oja oiUSdlAI 9|!4«4SJ9 sqi IP sa^Ao|dui9 JSAO 9^e\ o\ pSzyoqine ussq sei.l oaio SL|^/qsu9i| z/cj-sjnxsuuviouoiieoi^ou si|l 'OGllO 941 Jspun QlUScflAI 34110 up!tn|oss!pjaye psjaiieunspyets jsuoitjfadsi.jtjo upffipuoo 901AJ8S eyi eSyis 'f''ON 1-u3PUC>clssj jspyn Byi^.io/yl Aiiussejd si SL| aiiakim uoneindsp uo .i3uoii!iacl sqi luss J9L|ijnj oaiQ sqi •jnuuep jo iseicud Aue in6qi!Moaiop8uiofJ9UO!i!i9daqi'8JOi8qses99Ao|dLU9S4i.iosuO!i!puo3,; 93!AJSS9L|lBU!t0910jd'OiySdlA|S4tlOUO!S!Mp84tC4lU8nb9SU03'S99AO|dLUS pue siqBu '83!i!|!qsj| 'SISSBE sift J9AO 9^et 01 0013 eqi pezuoLiine. pue Z/d-sjnxeuuv ^ yoi^oyiiou psnssi Qiyg^lAI 10 sss^iy^s 9L|} 8^^ oi J9p.io U!}U9LUUJSA03 9tBis SL|j;-q.ie6S!ue4L|0.tOaieiS3!L|^jo aouaisixs oiui BuiLuooj9^pue'd'W^9lBtS^PUO!tez!UB^0^8MU9yeP9A|oss!PPOOls L|OJI.|M 'oiaSdlAl 9|!4^1SJS 3Ht 1° S9A°ldLU8 SBM •l3u°!:tBsd slll '^iqeindsipui •s •pLlB8|-|-t7 •sp!seies3qo}SSAj9S8pQtQZ'-i9qw®ld9Sq,0£ ^•e-M pajnajsq oi pa^ejip ussqseii jeubitiied si|t /tqsjaLlwzi./cl-ainxeuuv jo .Jspjo sqi pug uoi^nuyejadns BuipjeBej 6/d-§Jnx3uu\/ 9L|t 'Anusnbasuoo 'oiysdiM eiiq/vqsje Stfl yi 3|qB;li|dde sjsm y?!L|M syQ!ie|n69j/S9|ru sw Aq p9uj3AQ5 sq ||eL|s jsyoiiiieid ^L|I ^suonipuoo soiAjes 4eyi sepiAOjd i! se Je^ os eipui i6 UQiiniilsuQQ si|ip fri. SRIIJV W SA IO!A pue |e69||! si zoo^t^l P^ep z/d-gjnxsuuy IQ LK)!^3u!lou eq^^^^^^^^^ gg lo a6e syi BUIUIEUE uo lusLusjitg.i jp^ shp OS|B SJSM OL|M lueuiujaAoo StBtS 941 N P8qjo^e U93q 9 M ^yosg •d'H uqg pye ejysiiAi •>)-y ui|s 'AGULISi^ SBQ lUBUn UMS 'A|8"JBU 0010 34l 10S8S^91dU]a R338|d A|je|!UU!S jo se3!/uss syi ^qi p^iLuqns JSLiyni jaup!i!i8d /s^ jcy |9suno&^^^^^ :':i i!li' r ;1 :'{ '*£ £fi 6. As far as argyment of the petitionerffiat the service of other 3 employees namely, Shri Uttam Das Vaishnay, Shri R.K. Mishra and Shri H.P. Beohar have been absorbed by the State Government is concerned, it is settled law that a deputationist cannot assert and succeed in his claim for permanent absorption in the department where he works on deputation,j-inless his elaim is based upon a statutory rule, regulation pr order having the force of law, A deputationist can always and at ahy time be repatriated to his parent department, at the instance of either borrowing department or parent department. There is novested Fightirisuchapersprtto continuefor long 6n deputation or get absorbed in borrowing department, as has been held by the Supreme Gourt in the matter of Kynal Nanda Vs. Union of India and another{(2000)5 SCC 362}. 7. On the basis of aforesaid diseussion, we are oftth& Qpinion that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case Tor interference of this Court. The petition is devoid of merit, the sanie deserves to be and is aecordingly dismissed. ::; ; ' : •.-,':;.'.. :. 1: ./. . ' ;:.-:' : \~" Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge /' Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge