? é HEGH CGURT OF CHHATT3$GARH: BILASFUR Writ 3’etition § No. $41 4 of 2608 Petitioners ’é) SK, Gupta, S/o. CP. Gupta! aged about 43 years PIG Deandayai Hpadnyay Naga: mmm ya: workmg a3 m (marge Asaslant nqmear RES Sub Dmsmn Fmgenswar (Rajim), District Raipur; CG. 2} K. Vishwanathan, 8/0. Late Shri TS. K, Marthy, Aged abGut 58 years, Post Rle‘ Qfr. Of 83.0. (RES), Gariaband, D§strict Paipur LC: workir‘g as in marge Asastant Hwnenr PFQ SJb Dtw$vun Garraband astrict Qazpur CG L C‘warmka. 8:0 “hrt Ml¥a Cna mkar ggo 4 veam Post Q’Q Pengra Kedyya my Dietriot Bi'aspur v v, wcrrmg aa n charge Assrstawt Ergzneer RES sub Dweaon Pemra DQfrmtBnmpur CC‘ Versus Resgmadems 1) State of Ch’naiiisgam through the SeFretary, “eaar‘wem 0f Dahchayat Evam uremm Vma$h Vtbhag, Mm 5m! 3&8 &hqwan Raru. (CG) The Jo t berrefary Depar‘went of Pancnayat Evem Gramr Vtkash Vbhag, Ministry, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (CG), 3) The 8ecretary, Water Resources Department, D.K.S, Bhavarg, Raipur, CG. ix} {Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Consmuiion 0f {Mia} S8: Hon-‘bie Mr. satish K. Agnihcm, J. Sm Sazyendra Sam, cmme? for the petlttener‘ Shr§ Arun Sac, Gcvt. Advocate far the State‘ Presant, ORAL OREER (.Pagsed an 3'“ day of Juiy, 2998) With consent of boih the parties, me matter is heard finaw. 2) The petitioners chaiienge the vaiidity of the order dated 30—4-2008 .Annexure PI‘i) whereby *he oeutioners w‘io were or deputaton have been recaiied by the parent department. ,3) Leamed ccunset appearing for ttte petitianers submits that the petitioners wereinitiaiiy appointed as Sub Engineersinthe Water Resources Department. Vids crder dated 20—7—2005 (Annexure Pia) the petitioner No.1 was sent on deputatian .in the Rurai‘Engineering Sen/ices Depaz'fment. On 30/992000 {n9 4 petitionw No.2 and in the year 1995 petitioner No.3 were sent on députation én the same Department On query) the petitioners No. 2 and 3 are not in a position to produce the deputation order or the absorpfion order. 3) Learned counsei appearing for the respondents submits that absorption order was never passed and now the services of the petitioners have been withdrawn back to the parent department. 4) 5t is weii settieo principte of iaw that an empioyee has no right to the deputation forever. As the parentdepartment oftne petétioners is Water Resources Department, the empioyer has every right to reoaii back the services ot the petitioners to the parent department after compietion or reasonabie time. 5) Having considered at! the papers fried with the petition and the submissions made by the parties; i do not find any irreguiarity in the impugned order. Thus, no interference is warranted with the impugned order. 6) The petition is aocordingiy dismissed. No order asto costs. SdF . Satish K. Agnih Judge otri