wiK^WSS^- gl^i11?". S»::"1"'':" /• ,' i^^7. : .. 11: • IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. iSYNo.^^•3G 12.009 ' Petitioner ^^ ^^i^- ^S^K- :j...--";^!'^-^ ^yy -^ ^ Versus Respondents I1;: Marioj Jdshi, S/o Shri C. K. Joshi, Aged about 45 years, Naya Raipur Development Authority (N.R.D.A), Mantralaya, D. K. S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G,), ,R/o Sunder Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) • • : : 3. State , qi CtihattisgarhY through Secretary, Departmeht of Housing & Environment, Mantralaya, D.K.S. ,6havan, Raipur(C.G.) Under Secretary, Department of Housing & Environment, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) •I . . . . • . , • " . . 1 Secretary, Department of Revenue & Disaster Mhagement, ((/lantralaya, D.K.S. ^havan, Raipur(C.G.) Chief Executive Officer, Naya Raipur Development Authority (N.R.D.A), Mantralaya, D. K. S. Bhdvan, Ra'ipur .(C.G.)'111.' . ; , , .. :" , WRITPETITIQNUNDERART!€LE226/227QF_THE 1 • • •.'...•• CONSTITUTIONOF INDIA PETmONER RESPONDENTS Shri Manish Shanna, Advocate for the petitioner. Siiri Y.S.Thakiir, Deputy Advocato Geaeral forthe State. Slm B.D.Gum. Advocate for the respondent No. 4. HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^ WRIT PETmON (S) No. 4730 of2009 Manoj Joshi. ^ERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WritJ'etitionIJnderArticle_226/227,QfTlie_CQnstitutioiiO£India SB: Hoii'ble Shri Satisli K. Aanihotri. J. (qqp.^ or^ 05 .ri?i^r nf T^i'sn'pin,'' I7010'^ .^IL^'^-^^ \^i^ </»/' ^rfi-il-^ \/J> ^J ^i'jL±\^i^^-j * ^/t> j. w ^ With the consent of leamed counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is 2. heard finally. By this petition, the petitioaer seeks a writ to quash the order dated 11.08.2009 (Aimexiire P/l) whereby tlie petitioner, posted 011 deputation at Naya Raipur Development Authority (for short 'NRDA'), Raipur as Revenue Inspector, has been repatriated to his parent depai-taient i.e. Revenue Department. The iiidisputable facts, in brief, are that the parent department of the petitioner as Revenue Inspector is the Revenue Depaftment of tlie State GoveiTiment of Clihattisgarh. The petitioner was sent on deputation vide order dated 27.08.2001 to Capital Ai'ea Development Authority (for short 'C^WA') and posted at Raipur, which vvas later on renamed as NRDA. Sliri Shai-ma, leamed eounsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugiied order has been passed arbiti'arily, um-easonably aiid with an ultei-ior motive. Shi'i Sharma flirther submits that the bon'owing departsiient 3-ias not take any pem-iissioa from the parent departmesit to repatriate the sen'ices ofthe petitioner to the parent department. It is turther contended that-since there is scarcitv of stafi in the NTRDA, thsrefore, there is no need to repatriate tlie petitionei- back to liis parent departmezit. fn- ril- 4. Slii'i Thakur, leamed Deputy Advocafe General appearing for State/respondents 1 to 3 and Sliri B.D.Guro, leanied eounsel appearing for r'- H ^' <To. tlie respondent No. 4 submit that the deputationist can be repatriated back to his parent departinent at the instance of eitlier the bon-owmg department or the pareat department. The deputatiomst has no vested right to continue even afier expity ofmmunuiii prescribed period ofdeputation. I liave heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, penised ths pleadings and the documents appended thereto. Admittedly, in the present case, it is evident that the petitioner was seiit on deputation by order dated 27.08.2001 (thougli a copy ofthe order -whereby the petitioner was sent 021 deputation to NRDA has not been filed with the petition) and by order dated 11.08.2009 (Aiuiexure P.'l), the petitionei- was repatriated back to the parent depailment afler completion of minimum period of two years. Ths petitioner was on deputation for about eight years. The law on deputation is ven.' clear. The Supreme Court in State ofPunjab and others vs. Inder Singh cmd others while consideniig tlie deputation and repatriation to the pai-ent cadre/depai'tinent on expiry of period of deputation observed as under :- "18. The concept of "deputation" is well understood in service law aiid has a recogiiized meaning. "Deputation" has a different coimotation in sen'ice law and the dictionai'y meaning oftlie word "deputation" is ofno help. In siniple words "deputatioa" means sendce oufside the cadre or outside tlie parent depactment. Deputation is deputiiig or transferring an employee to a post outside his eadre, that is to say, to anotlier departnient on a temporary basis. Aftei' the expiry period of deputation tlie employee has to come back to his pareiit departinent to occupy the same positioii unless in the meanwhile he has eamed promotion in his parent department as per the Reci'uitment Rules. Whether the transfer is outside thc nonnal field of deplovment or not is decided bv the authoritv who coiitrols the service or post from which tne employee is traiisferred. There can be no deputation without the consem ofthe person so depllted and he woii!cL therefore, taiow his rights and privileges in the deputation post. The law on deputation and repatriation is quite settled as v/e have also seen in various judgments which we have refen-ed to above............." (1997) 8 SCC 372 SS'SK, 9. 10. The Supreme Court in Umapat' Choiidhary v. State ofBihcir and anothei'' has defmed 'deputation' inthe followitigtei-ms:- "Deputation can be aptly described as an assignment ofan einployee (coiruisonly referred to as Ihe deputatiomst) of one department or cadre or even an organization (coiTBuonly referred to as the parent department or lending authority) to another department or cadre or organization (conunonly referred to as the borrowing authority). The necessity for sending on deputation arises in public interest to meet the exigencies of public ser/ice. The concept of deputation is consensual and involves a voluatan' decision ofthe employer to lend the sen'-ices of liis employee and a con'esponding acceptance of such service by the borrowiag employer. It also mvolves the consent ofthe employee to go on deputation or not." Further, in Kunal Nanda vs. Union of India mid ariothei^, the Supreme Court observed as under: "6....The basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the person concerned caii always and at any time be repatriated to his parent depai-tment to serve any substaative position therem at the mstance ofeither ofthe depailments and there is no vested right in such a person to contimie for long on deputation or get absorbed in the department to which be had gone on deputation...." The Supreme Court in Prasar Bharti & Ors. vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors . observed that; "13. There exists a distinction between 'traiisfer aiid 'deputatioa'. 'Deputation' connotes sen'ice outside the cadre or outside the parent departmeat in wliich an employee is sendna. 'Transfer', howev.er, is linuted to equivalent post iii the same cadre and in the same department. WTiereas depirtatioa would be a temporan' phenomenon, transfer being antithesis must exhibit the opposite indications. The question of law, as stated hereinabove, came into consideration in tlie matter ot'RadheLalNag v. Government ofChhattisgarh and others [WP(S) No. 399.7/20071 decided on 27.3.2008, wherem this Court, afier havin^ exaniiiied the circular dated 02.12.1988 dealing with the period of deputation, held as under: (1999) 4 SCC 659 ' (2000) 5 SCC 362 4AIR2007SC 1269 ./"-'' -• •'.', '" ^ - i '-;»,i 'k'Oj ^ "6. As per the circular dated 2.12.1988 (Aimexure p/3) in noniial cases the niiiiu-uum period of deputation is two years, which can be extaided for a period of four years. The relevant clause of the circular dated 2.12.198i (Aimexure P/3) reads as under: "a. gf^ftq.f^r <})T ^FT ^-ra <^ snwr TR ^t-t <^ 'OTTFrer TpFI f^ ff^ arf^d ep} ^sfT? <CT ^ ^>q ^t <N.w fST? cft uipft 'Emti? i vs sraBr ^Nf R'^MII' q^ -ti^^iKi ^r q;ci raro?? ^K ^ cw «IST^ uff titfi'n <T g^ l^ft •41 ^lrtcl iT Rrpl^f^ vs ^R q< 'sfft srai^ v 'sv^^i •pt'? ysEiriT^'r uTT c^. q'rf^^> R+in ^ inqfiT ai-i^c;') w fti^ friT ^T '?^i n4 ] ^ <ii'w ^firPTgf^iT wrq atsr-t ^ gcR1T ^t sM' ^ 'SR v? ^ ^iPf^ t^TTT ^»t y<ii<a<i?l^ ^ ri4'il"d TRO% ;H8WiqiT -^ ^TT.ffqStq ^q^; •^1 TtqFftq 3^lftdc!> :-T'Rft ^ 'HTSf 4^ u(N I" 11. Applying the well settled principles oflavv on deputation to the facts ofthe ease, continuation of the employees on dqiutation or repatriation on eompletion of deputation period does not depend on their consent. After completion of minimum period of deputation, tSie petitioner/employee may be repati-iated back to the parent depai-tinent. 12. In view of foregoing and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, no iiiterference is v/arraiited withthe order dated 11.08.2009 (Annexure-P/1). Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itseif. Intei'im relief granted eariier is vacated. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge