IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 2764 of 2008. Decided on: 25.3.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Shri Ashok Kumar … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For Respondents No.1,2&4 : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petitioner was sent on deputation on 15.1.1994 by the Chief Engineer, I&PH to the Municipal Corporation, Shimla. He submitted his joining report on 18.1.1994. He was not permitted to discharge his duties. It is borne out from the records that the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla sent various communications to the Chief Engineer, IPH bringing to his notice that the petitioner could not be sent on deputation unilaterally to the Corporation. The petitioner made several representations to the authorities that either his joining should be accepted or he should be repatriated to his principal employer. However, fact of the matter is that neither he was permitted to work in the Municipal 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 Corporation, Shimla pursuant to letter dated 15.1.1994 nor he was taken back by the principal employer. In sequel to the representation made by the petitioner, he was adjusted in Shimla Head Office (Stores Section) after his repatriation vide office order dated 8.7.1994. It is a case where the petitioner cannot be faulted with. He was sent on deputation by the employer. It was for the employer to ensure that his joining report was accepted by the Municipal Corporation, Shimla. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner remained without work and of course without salary with effect from 15.1.1994 to 8.7.1994. The petitioner could not be deprived of his salary for this period. The State in future will take into consideration the well settled principles of deputation. The decision to send a person on deputation is unilateral and not bilateral act. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent No.1 is directed to release the salary of the petitioner for the relevant period i.e. 15.1.1994 to 8.7.1994 within six weeks from today with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. March 25, 2009. (cr)