IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIONS) No. 5? 1/56}? 2009 PETITIONER: ff Pramod Kumar, Aged About- 38 Years, S/o- Late Shri Tarachand Jain, Occupation— Service- Working as Employment Offlcer, Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT(S): 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretaiy, Department of Technical Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 .Awar Sachiv, Takniki Shiksha, Janshakti Niyojan Vigyan Aywam Prodigiki , Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Employment and Training, Raipur / / 3.Director, (C.G.) / 4.Union of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Labour and Employment, Shram' Shakti Bhavan, New Delhi W f 5. Vishnu Kedia, S/o— (Not known to the petitioner), Occupation Service- Working as Employment Officer, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (Writ Petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Vinay Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State. Shri Kashif Shakeel, standing counsel for the Union of India. Present . ORDER ORAL (Passed on this 6‘ day ofApriI, 201 1) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 25-9-2009 whereunder the petitioner working as Employment Officer in Employment Exchange, Raigarh was transferred to thelndustrial Training Institute (Women), Kanker (for short ”the 'ITI”). Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Employment Ofhcer and appointment of the Employment Officer is governed and regulated by the Chhattisgarh- Employment Service (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2005 (for short ”the Employment Rules, 2005”). The respondent in its memo dated 23-10-2002 (Annexure — R1/1) annexed with the return has indicated the pay scale of T 8000-275- 13500 of the Employment Officer. The employees of the lTl are regulated and governedby the Chhattisgarh Industrial Training (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2005 (for short ”the Industrial Training Rules, 2005”). In the schedule, there is no postof Employment Officer and there is no other post, which‘is transferable with the Employment Officer. The pay scale of the Principal. Class ll under schedule l of the~lndustrial Training Rules, 2005, though, is equal to the pay scale oftthe Employment Offrcer. Shri Pandey further submits that since the employees of the lTl are governed by different set up of rules iLe. the Industrial Training Rules, 2005 and the petitioner is got/emed' by the rules namely; the Employment Rules, 2005, the transfer .of .the petitioner from the Employment Exchange to ITI amounts to deputation from one department to other'department and the same cannot be done without - : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.5745 OF'2009 rn PETITIONER Pramod Kumar Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others consent of the employee concerned i.e. the petitioner in the instant CaSe. Shri Gupta, Iearned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State and Shri Kashif Shakeei, Iearned standing counsel appearing for the Union of India submit that since the Director of iTl as well as the Employment & Training is one and the same, the services between both the departments ‘are interchangeable, thus it is not a deputation, but a transfer. On a query asto whether there is a post of Employment Officer or any other post, which are interchangeable under the rules, there is no response and further it has not been found in both the rules also that the employees of two categories governed by different rules can be inter changed. In view of foregoing, from no stretch of imagination it can be held that it is a case of transfer from one post to other post. It appears to be a clear case of deputation. It is a trite law that no employee can be sent on deputation to any other department without prior consent of the employee concerned, as that amounts to change of employer. 10. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the case of the petitioner is a clear case of transfer on deputation to other department, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. There is no dispute that consent of employee was not obtained before passing the impugned order. Thus, the impugned order dated 25-9-2009 passed in respect of the petitioner is quashed. 11. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. L Sd/- 2 Satish K. Agniho Judge Gowri tl‘