HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.137 of 2010 (S/B) Virendra Mohan …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ...Respondents Dated : August 19th 2010 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Manoj Sah, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondent no.1. Ms. Puja Banga, Advocate for respondent no.2. 2. On 7th August, 1989 petitioner was an employee of the State Government and was working in the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. By the order dated 7th August, 1989 petitioner was deputed to the respondent corporation to work as Assistant Accounts Officer until appointment of Chief Accounts Officer. It is the contention of the petitioner that Chief Accounts Officer was not appointed and as a result, petitioner continued to remain deputed to the respondent corporation. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the normal period of deputation is three years but despite 2 expiry of three years petitioner continued to remain deputed with the respondent corporation. Petitioner, thus, sought for absorption in the respondent corporation. The State Government did not agree to the same. Petitioner was, accordingly, compelled to approach this Court, whereupon this Court issued a direction for absorption of the petitioner and thereupon the petitioner was absorbed in the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. It is the contention of the petitioner that the posts of Accounts Officer and Chief Accounts Officers have been abolished to deprive the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner in the present writ petition that the respondent corporation at no point of time had any post of Assistant Accounts Officer, it only had a post of Chief Accounts Officer and later a post of Accounts Officer. Petitioner, on being deputed, did discharge the duties and functions of the Chief Accounts Officer and of the Accounts Officer. It is the contention of the petitioner that he could only be absorbed in the post of Accounts Officer. Before the petitioner was deputed his status was that of Assistant Accounts Officer. When the petitioner was deputed it was clearly held out to him that his status at the deputed organization will be that of Assistant Accounts Officer. The status remained unaltered, by the reason of the order of the deputation, until such time petitioner remained deputed. On absorption, petitioner could not ask for elevation of his status from Assistant Accounts Officer to Accounts Officer on the ground that he discharged duties attached to the post of Accounts Officer or on the ground that there is no post of Assistant Accounts Officer in 3 the respondent corporation. The fact that the petitioner has been absorbed in the post of Assistant Accounts Officer itself suggests that there is a post of Assistant Accounts Officer in the respondent corporation. In the event, petitioner contends that the said post does not exist, the one and the only way left to the petitioner would be to seek repatriation to his parent cadre. On the basis of absorption in the deputed organization, petitioner, in law, is not entitled to upgrade his status. In the event, petitioner has discharged duties attached to a superior post, it is open to the petitioner to seek such remuneration as he is entitle in respect thereof but because he had been asked to discharge duties attached to a higher post, petitioner cannot claim ipso-facto that he is entitled to the status of such higher post. We accordingly, see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. (V.K.Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 19.08.2010 Arti