Bimal Kumar Jha vs Water Resources Departement on 17 February, 2014

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Bimal Kumar Jha vs Water Resources Departement on 17 February, 2014

The petitioner admittedly belongs to the cadre of the Assistant Engineer under the Water Resources Department. His services were placed on deputation, vide notification dated 30.06.2011, under the Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand. He consequently submitted his joining in the said department and took charge of the post of Assistant Director initially on 05.08.2011 and where after he has been placed in other capacity by subsequent notifications of the Urban Development Department.

In the present case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the notification no. 7776 dated 21.12.2013 issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department under the orders of Governor, Jharkhand by which his services have been repatriated from the Urban Development Department to his parent department i.e. Water Resources Department.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that requests to reconsider the repatriation made by the Secretary Urban Development Department vide Annexure-10 has also not been heeded to. It is further submitted that Vide Annexure-11dated 21.01.2014 issued by the Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, such representation of individual engineers/ head of the department concerned for reconsideration of the order of repatriation has been rejected in a general manner, which is impugned in the present writ petition as well.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondents are obliged to honour the terms and conditions of the resolution framed under Memo No. 1078 dated 08.03.2007 which lay down the criteria and tenure in respect of such deputation in different works department. According to the petitioner, the period of deputation of an employee of the cadre of Assistant Engineer is ordinarily six years and that of the Junior Engineer is ordinarily held to be nine years. He has, however, relied upon the letter of the Building Construction and Housing Department, Government of Bihar bearing no. 1-103/92-1240 dated 10.04.1992 in which the practice of recall/ relieving of the officers of Public Works Department from other department have been looked down upon stating that it should only be done after taking consent of the department where the employee is under deputation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order of repatriation has been issued in discriminatory manner as the some of the persons covered under the said circular, however, have completed six years of deputation as well, but the petitioner has not yet done so. In such circumstances, he has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India through Government of Pondicherry and Anr. Vs. V. Ramakrishnan and Ors. reported in 2005 (8) SCC 394 paragraph-32 thereof. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order of repatriation is in teeth of the laid down guidelines under the circular in vogue and also an act of malice in law which requires interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite non acceptance of such a requests made by the Secretary, Urban Development Department, the petitioner has not yet been relieved from the Urban Development Department.

Learned counsel for the respondents, has, however, opposed the prayer. It has been submitted on their part that the writ petition has been taken up for the first time today and has been filed only a week back, therefore, instructions are also awaited to meet the contention on merit. It has been submitted that impugned notification is in the nature of mass order of repatriation where 84 such officers in the rank of engineers generally in the rank of Assistant Engineers have been taken back by the parent department on the recommendation of the Establishment Committee and the notification has been issued under the order of His Excellency Governor of Jharkhand, which does not suffer from any malice of law as argued by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the requests of Secretary, Urban Development Department was also considered and in the exigency of work in the department, such request has not been entertained as also indicated in the order dated 21.01.2014 rejecting such representation/ requests. Therefore, this Court should not interfere in the matter of repatriation of an employee under deputation by his parent department.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant materials on record. As would appear from perusal of the impugned notification, Annexure-9 dated 21.12.2013 there are 84 employees in the rank of Assistant Engineers and few others whose services were placed under different department on deputation from time to time earlier. The parent department i.e. the Water Resources Department on the basis of recommendation of the departmental establishment committee meeting held on 20.12.2013 has taken a decision to recall the services of those employees including the petitioner to the parent department. It is trite to say that in law deputationist does not have any right to remain at the place of his deputation. Even when the tenure of deputation is specified, he does not have indefeasible right to hold the said post. In the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (Supra) relied upon by the petitioner in para-32, it has also been clearly observed that an order of reversion can be questioned when the same is mala fide or even action taken in a post-haste manner as it indicates malice. In the present case as would appear from the discussion made hereinabove and submission made on behalf of the rival parties, it is not a case of isolated repatriation of the petitioner to the parent department by impugned notification where 84 such employees have been directed to report joining in the parent department after recalling their services from different departments. The circular dated 08.03.2007 relied upon by the petitioner, Annexure-16, though may be said to have indicated tenure for such deputation but that does not confer any legal right to the deputationist petitioner to remain in the different department as his services may be required by the parent department. In such circumstances, it appears that even requests of the Secretary, Urban Development Department have not been accepted by the parent department as the services of the petitioner and other employees have been required for the exigency of work by the Water Resources Department. It is also clear that 84 such engineers were in deputation in different departments from one single Water Resources Department which also gives indication that absence of such large number of engineers in a parent department i.e. Water Resources Department may have affected the execution of several such on going projects and works thereunder. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, therefore, the writ petitioner has failed to make out any case of malice in law so far as the order of impugned notification is concerned whereunder 84 such persons have been recalled to the parent department. This Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court