Allahabad High Court
Gopal Singh Bhakuni vs Union Of India, Thru. Secy., Ministry Of ... on 27 April, 2023
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3163 of 2023 Petitioner :- Gopal Singh Bhakuni Respondent :- Union Of India, Thru. Secy., Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri Saroj Kumar Verma, Advocate holding brief of Shri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri S.B. Pandey, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Shri Sudhanshu Chauhan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India.
2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
"1. To issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.06.2022 contained as Annexure No.1 to this Writ Petition, with all consequential benefits.
2. To issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party no.2 & 3 to retain the lien of the petitioner with effect from 24.01.2022 till 23.01.2024 and further direct opposite party no.5 to proceed accordingly, and pass necessary order regarding repatriation/ reversion of petitioner, with all consequential benefits.
3...
4..."
3. The petitioner who was employed in Border Roads Organization (hereinafter referred to as "B.R.O.") on the post of Supervisor Administration was sent on deputation in the cadre of Caretaker at Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow for a period of one year commencing from 30.12.2019 and the period of deputation was extended for a further period of two years.
4. After expiry of the said period of two years, the petitioner moved his willingness on 08.10.2020 for his absorption in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow. The said request of the petitioner was considered favourably vide order dated 27.01.2020 and he was absorbed in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow on the post of Caretaker. Now, the petitioner wants that his lien with the B.R.O. should be maintained for a period of two years.
5. Shri S.B. Pandey, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, submits that there is no provision to maintain the lien in the parent department after his absorption in other department/Government Organization inasmuch as there cannot be two masters of the petitioner. Once the petitioner got absorbed in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow, his lien got sever from the B.R.O.
6. This Court, put a specific query to the learned Counsel for the petitioner that under which rule or government order, the petitioner is entitled to maintain his lien in the parent department i.e. B.R.O. to which, learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that he could not lay his hands on any such rule or executive instructions.
7. Considering the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, this Court finds no substance in the present petition, which is hereby dismissed.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.) Order Date :- 27.4.2023 Piyush/-