r^-^"'% ^ '^: *•••^ui»,: a ff -,,'iE':":/7A^ -!.i'iltlf.7 i^iy /; '^f~ D s <7 C • /'Z - G ^— fRITAPPEAL N0,013808 HON'BLE SHR! JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR S'NHA HON'BLE SHRi JUSTiCE T.P. SHARMA i^ss"-:^: gcgSSS) igrt't ts«l 1 State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department of Forest, D.K.S. Buiiding, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2 Chief Conservator of Forest, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Dlstrict Raipur (C.G.) 3 Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) P.R.Jhangde, S/o Amol Das Jhangde, Aged about 55 years, Presently posted as Sub Divisionai Officer (Forest)/ and working as Assistant Conservator of Forest, Divlsion Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO D!V!SON BENCHS ACT 2005 Shri KJshore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate General for the State. //' 9 '"'i—er"-'' Writ Appeai No.01/2008 ^.3 ^^•^. ;a!iiBi£ l:5i~£^ The (25.03.2099) foltowing order of the Court was passed Heard on I.A. No.01, which is an application for condonation of deiay in filing the Writ Appeql. On due consideration of the submissions of learned Additionat Advocate Generai appearing on behalf of the State, we are satisfied that the appellants have sufficiently explained the deiay in filing this Writ Appeal. Accordingiy, I.A. No.01 is altowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Shri Bhaduri is also heard on admission. The State and its authorities have filed this appeal against the order dated 17 ApriJ 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.897/20C7, whereby, an order dated 4ih February 2007 (Annexure P/1 of the writ petition) so far as i$ relates to the respondent /petitioner was quashed by the learned Single Judge and the petition was allowed with cost quantified to the tune of Rs.2000/-. The respondent/petitioner was working as Sub Divisionat Officer (Forest), Jangjir-Champa. He was sent on deputation from Janjgir-Champa to District Union, Rajya Laghu Vanopaj Sangh, Jagdalpur by order dated 4th February 2007. The respondent/petitioner contended that no consent was obtained while sending him on deputation in Rajys Laghu Vanopaj Sangh, Jagdalpur. When the State caused appearance in the Writ Petition, a reply was filed and in the said reply, the State answered that the respondent was transferred So Jagdaipur, but the transfer '•< » Writ Aooeal No.01;2008 was on deputatlon. The learned Single Judge has quoted the relevsnt portion of the reply flled by the State. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that in fact, it was a deputation, as contended by the State and the consent of the respondenVpetitioner was not obtained. !t is in this manner, the impugned order, so far as it rel&tes to the respondenfpetitioner, was quashed bythe learned SingleJudge. Learned Additional Advocate General for the State argues that in fact, it was a transfer, therefore, consent of the respondent was not neeessary. \A/e fail to accept such contention of learned counsel for the State, particuiarly in view of the contents of the return filed by the State before the learned Single Judge. The State has contended that it was a transfer on deputation, which legally would not be possible. If an employee is sent on deputation from his parent department to the borrowing department, his consent is required for that purpose and effecting such displacement, in the realm of service law, would not be termed as transfer. In the matter of State ofPunlab and others Vs. Inder Sinah and others. 1997 AIR SCW 3949, it has been held by the Apex Court that the concept of "deputation" is well understood in service law and has a recognized meaning. 'Deputation' has a different connotation in-service law and the dictionary meaning of the word 'deputation' is of no help. tn simple words 'deputation' means ser\'ice outside the cadre or outside the parent department. Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside his cadre, that is to say, to another department on a temporary basis. After the expiry period of deputation the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he has earned Writ Aopeal No.01/2008 -Lf^ promotion in his parent department as per Recruitments Ruies. Whether the transfer is outside the normal field of deployment or not is decided by the authority who controis the service or post from which the employee is transferred. There can be no deputation without the consent of tne person so deputed and he would, therefore, know his right and privileges in the deputation post. '•,, In AIR 1999 SC 1S4B in the matter of Umapati Choudharv Vs. of Bihar and another, it has been again held by the Apex Court that the deputation can be aptly described as an assignment of an employee (commonly referred to as the deputationist) of one department or cadre or even an organization (ccmmonly referred to as the parent department or lending authority) to another department or cadre or organization (commonly referred to as the borrowing authority). The necessity for sending on deputatlon arises in pubiic interest to meet the exigencies of public service. The concept of deputation is consensual and involves a voluntary decision of the employer to lend the services of his emptoyee and a corresponding acceptance of such services by the borrowing employer. !t also involves the consent of the employee to go on deputation or not. Accordingly, we do not find any force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appeliants. The appeal has no merits. The same is liabie to be hereby dismissed at the motion stage itseif. No order as to costs. -1—. ^Jk»J-ih_^..^ Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge r. Sdl- p.Sbarwa •*' judSe