IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14535 of 2010 1. MUNDRIKA PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE RAMESHWAR SINGH R/O MOHALLA - COLLEGE ROAD AT AND P.S -FATUA, DISTRIC - PATNA, AT PRESENT POSTED AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NREP, P.S.- GANDHI MAIDAN AT AND DISTRICT - PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR PATNA. 5. THE DISTRICT OFFICER CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA. 5. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER ,PATNA. 6. MR. RAM CHANDRA SHARMA ,(NAME OF FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VISHWSARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILY ROAD, PATNA ----------- 2. 03.09.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is an employee of the Public Works Department now christened as the Road Construction Department. He was sent on deputation to the Rural Department of the State Government. His repatriation is much to his dislike which he questions before this Court. A person on deputation has a limited right and no vested claim to continue on his post of deputation. Only if the order for repatriation is prior to the completion of the period of deputation, is punitive and stigmatic without an opportunity to defend, are some of the circumstances under which the Courts may interfere with an order of repatriation. There is no compulsion that an order for repatriation may be made only if the parent department sends a requisition for recall. The Department of Deputation is also competent to do so for reasons of its own satisfaction. In AIR 1990 SUPREME COURT 1132 "Ratilal B. Soni v. State of Gujarat" it has been held at paragraph 5 as follows:- 2 “5. The appellants being on deputation they could be reverted to their parent cadre at any time and they do not get any right to be absorbed on the deputation post. We see no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court and as such we dismiss the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs.” It is not the case of the petitioner that he has been repatriated before time or that his repatriation was stigmatic in nature. The entire contention of the petitioner revolves around whether the Secretary, Rural Works Department, or the Secretary, Rural Development Department, was competent to order his repatriation. It is contended that the impugned order dated 21.7.2010 issued by the Rural Development Department essentially affirms an illegal order for repatriation dated 20.11.2009 passed by the Secretary, Rural Works Department. This Court had in CWJC No. 16135 of 2009 and CWJC No. 5664 of 2010 directed the Secretary, Rural Development Department, to decide issues. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Government instruction No. 5097 dated 18.6.2009 vested powers for repatriation etc. of persons like the petitioner in the Rural Development Department. While it has been withdrawn by the subsequent communication dated 26.5.2010, the two other letters vide nos. 5098 & 5099 vesting powers in the Rural Development Department have not been withdrawn. The order dated 26.5.2010 is not an order of the State Government unlike letter nos. 5098 & 5099. The next submission is that the procedure for repatriation by approval of the Chief Minister was mandatory and has not been taken in the case of the petitioner 3 in accordance with the Rules of Executive Business but it has been done with regard to certain others. It was next submitted that this Court had directed the respondents to decide the issue of transfer of the petitioner in the Rural Department and in context of which the concession on his behalf was made in CWJC No. 16506 of 2008 for posting outside Patna. If the order in CWJC No. 5546 of 2010 follows the same there was no justification for the respondents in the garb of orders of this Court to order repatriation but they could at best have ordered his transfer outside Patna in the Rural Development Department itself only. Counsel for the State submitted that the order passed by the Rural Works Department on 20.11.2009 has been ratified by the Rural Development Department in terms of the order of this Court in CWJC No. 16135 of 2009 read with the order in CWJC No. 5446 of 2010. The impugned order dated 21.7.2010 is no more than that. In CWJC No. 16135 of 2009 this Court declined to interfere with the order for repatriation on merits. Noticing that the challenge was only on matters of procedure for having been issued by the Rural Works Department this Court directed it to be placed before the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, for ratification only. Once the Rural Development Department has ratified it in terms of the direction of this Court, to the mind of this Court nothing more survives for consideration as is apparent from the last two paragraphs of the order dated 26.11.2009 which reads as follows:- 4 ”Be that as it may, since the matter pertains to procedure only, this Court directs that the order dated 20.11.2009 shall be placed before the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department for his consideration when the matter shall finally abide by such orders passed by him. Since a very short question is involved, this Court expects that no sooner that the order is placed before the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, he shall pass appropriate order in his wisdom which shall be complied with by the parties.” The petitioner was respondent no. 7 in CWJC no. 16506 of 2008 when he appears to have been dragged to the Court on his deputation post. The opening lines of the order dated 15.1.2009 notices that what was a challenge to an order of transfer simpliciter had “turned out to be a far more murky issue between the petitioner and respondent no. 7 (the present petitioner)”. In that order it has been noticed that the petitioner had allegedly resorted to physical abuse with the petitioner therein when both sides had filed criminal cases against each other in an issue of transfer and posting which had “been reduced to acts of indiscipline and insubordination in a free fight for their respective claims to the chair of the Executive Engineer at Patna” in the Rural Department where the petitioner was on deputation. That the petitioner in CWJC No. 16506 of 2008 may have questioned the order in an LPA shall not enure to the benefit of the present petitioner was adequately noticed in CWJC No. 5446 of 2010 when he has not questioned the order in appeal. The findings against the present petitioner in CWJC No. 16506 of 2008 therefore have attained finality. 5 The fresh impugned order for repatriation dated 21.7.2010 ratifies the earlier order dated 20.11.2009. It is fairly acknowledged on part of the petitioner that he has not reported back to his parent department till date. The Court, in the background of the aforesaid discussion, cannot loose sight of the fact that the parent department, the Road Construction Department, has not been impleaded as a party respondent in the writ petition. Presumably this was done so designedly as not to attract the attention of the Road Construction Department which may proceed on the assumption and presumption with regard to his continuance on deputation in the Rural Department. It has further to be seen in that context that the impugned order dated 21.7.2010 contained an endorsement to the Road Construction Department but contains no letter number and no date unlike contents of the communication made to certain others. It is therefore apparent that the order has not been communicated to the parent department also. In absence of any challenge to the deputation on the grounds first discussed, aforesaid the Court holding that the original order for repatriation stood ratified by the appropriate authority in terms of the directions of this Court, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case with regard to the conduct of the petitioner noticed hereinabove in context of certain other orders of this Court he naturally stands in a class other than those whose cases may have been dealt with in compliance of the Rules of Executive Business as is urged. 6 This Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the case is more than satisfied that the petitioner has successfully stalled his repatriation for more than reasonable time by resort to litigation on more than one occasion. It is now time for him to go back. A government servant has a right to protect his interest if his service or service interests be jeopardised. Discipline inhibits resort to litigation in a manner of a private individual more particularly against his employer on grounds which do not substantively affect his service and career. The disciplinary aspect of his non compliance with the order for repatriation dated 21.7.2010 is a matter to be considered appropriately by the parent department. The writ application stands dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)