--- 1 --- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE S.B.: HON'BLE MR. S. C. SHARMA, J WRIT PETITITION NO. 3555 / 2009 KALOORAM S/O SAKHARAM CHOUBAY Vs. STATE OF MP & ORS., * * * * * O R D E R ( 1/2/2011) The petitioner before this court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dt. 19/1/09 repatriating the petitioner to his parent Department. The contention of the petitioner is that he was serving as an employee of M.P. Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd., Bhopal and was sent on deputation by an order dt. 18/11/05 to MP State Agriculture Marketing Board and he has submitted his joining pursuant to the order on deputation. The petitioner has further stated that while on deputation he was transferred on 9/5/2008 to Bhopal and then to Badnawar. The petitioner has further stated that the State Government by an order dt. 13/5/08 has extended the period of deputation of Dugdh Sangh Employees from 1/4/2008 to --- 2 --- 31/3/09 and again it was extended by order dt. 18/5/09 upto 31/3/10 and lastly it has been extended by the State Government by an order dt. 21/4/10 for a period upto 31/3/11. Learned sr. counsel has vehemently argued before this court that the compliance of the order passed by the State Government extending the period of deputation is mandatory in nature keeping in view Sec. 40-A of the MP Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972. It has been stated that once an order extending the period of deputation has been passed, the Board as well as the Mandi Committees have no other option except to obey the order passed by the State Government and therefore as the period of deputation was extended from time to time, the respondents have committed an error in repatriating the petitioner by the impugned order dt. 19/1/09. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the aforesaid order dt. 19/1/09. A reply has been filed in the matter. Learned sr. counsel for respondents has submitted that the orders passed from time to time by the State Government extending the deputation of surplus employees are certainly not at all --- 3 --- applicable in the case of the petitioner. It has been argued that the petitioner was sent on deputation by an order dt. 10/11/05 for a period of 1 year only that too purely on temporary basis. It has been further argued that period of deputation was extended by the State Government in respect of the employees declared as surplus, meaning thereby, it extended only in respect of surplus employees of MP Co- operative Dairy Federation and Dugdh Sangh as well as MP Co-operative Oil Federation. The respondents have categorically stated that the petitioner was sent on deputation only for a limited period and he has been rightly repatriated by the Agriculture Marketing Board as his services were no longer required by the MP Agriculture Marketing Board. Respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. In the present case, the order of deputation dt. 18/11/05 clearly reflects that the petitioner was sent on deputation for a period of 1 year only. The order of deputation does not --- 4 --- refer to any other order of the State Government or any other order passed by the MP Agriculture Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd., (parent organisation) wherein the petitioner was declared as surplus employee. No material on record has been brought by the petitioner to establish that he was declared as surplus employee and therefore the question of applicability of the orders passed by the State Government in respect of surplus employees of Dugdh Sangh and Tilhan Sangh does not arise. The petitioner was sent on deputation only for a period of one year and as his services were no longer required by the borrowing department he has been repatriated. It is really strange that in the present case, no interim order has been passed and the petitioner has not submitted his joining in the parent department till date. However, as the same is not the subject matter before this court, the same is not being dealt with. So far as petitioner's repatriation is concerned, as the petitioner was not a surplus employee, the question of applicability of Sec. 40-A, in the facts and circumstances of the case does not arise. The petitioner has already been repatriated to the --- 5 --- parent organisation and it is a well settled proposition of law that a deputationist cannot claim continuance on deputation for indefinite period. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Resultantly the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E KR