^F/{ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 872 of 2007 Petitioner 1) 2) 3) 4) Thomas Xess, aged about 56 years, S/o. Late Shri Jhagru Xess, occupation Govemment Service, posted as Sub Divisional Officer, Forest Department, Dhowrpur East Surguja Division Ambikapur, DistrictSurguja.CG. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Forest, Mantralaya - D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, CG. Consen/ator of Forest, Surguja, Circle, Ambikapur, CG. Managing Director, Chhattlsgarh, Rajya Vanopaj Sangh, Raipur, CG. Shri R.K. Malhotra, Sub Divisionai Officer, O/o. Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, Kunkuri, Forest Division, Jashpur, CG. rit Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutton of India) S.B: Hon'bie Shri Justice Satish K. Atinihotri. PRESENT: Shri Shailendrs Dubey, counsel for the petitloner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3/ Stats. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for respondent No.4. ,th iPassedon19InApril2 1. The petitioner, by this pstition, impugns the order datea' 4-2-2007 (Annexure P/1), vvhereunder he has been transferred from the post of Sub Divisionai OfRcer, Forest Department, Dhowrpur, East Surguja Division Ambikapur, Dlst. Surguja to the District Union, Rajya Laghu Vanopaj Sangh,as Sahayak Van Sanrakshak, Dantewara. The petitloner impugns the order on the jround that the impugned order is not a transfer simplicitor, but it is a deputation order which has been passed without obtaining consent of the petitioner. 2. ssue as to vvhether an empioyee can be sent on deputafion without obtaining consent of the concerned employes to other departmsnt was considered in the matter of P.R. Jharsgde Vs. State of Chhatfisgarh and others), wherein it was heid that the deputation order without consent of the concerned employee is vitiated and the petition was allowed vide order ailowed vide order dated 17-4-2007 passed in Writ Petition (s) No.897/2007. 3. Hon"ble the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. indersingh and others , at para 18 observed as under "18. The concept of "deDUtation" is well understood in service law and has a recognized meaning. "Deputation" has a different connotation in servlce iaw and the dictionary meaning of the word "deputation" is of no help. !n simple words "deputation" means service outside the cadre or outside the parent department. Deputation as 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 empioyee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he has eamed promotion in his parent department as per the Recruitment Rules. Whether the transfer is outside the ' (1997) 8 SCC 372 ,-\;\/ normai fisld of deployment or not is decided by the authority who controls the service or post from which the employee is transferred. There can be no deputation without the consent of the person so deputed and hs would, therefore, know his rights and privileges in the deputation post." 4. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Umapati Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar and anotber' observed as under: "The necessity for sending on deputation arises in public interest to meet the exigencies of public service. The consent of deputation is consensual and involves a voiuntary decision of the employer to Send the sen/lces of his employee and a corresponding acceptance of such services by the borrowing employer. It aiso involves the consent of the empioyee to go on deputation or not." 5 !n vlew ofthe foregoing, the petitton deserves to be aliowed. 6. As a result, the impugned order dated 4-2-2007 (Annexure P/1) in respect of the petitioner, is quashed. The petition is ailowed in terms of the order dated 17-4-2007 passed by this Court in W.P.(S)No. 897 of 2007 (P.R. JhanadeVs. State of Chhattisgarh andothers). Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Raiu 2AIR1999SC1948