Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj Kumar Choudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 March, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP-5407-2018
(MANOJ KUMAR CHOUDHARY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
5
Jabalpur, Dated : 19-03-2018
Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri B.D. Singh, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Heard on admission.
sh Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was e sent on deputation by order dated 16.08.2013 (Annexure-P/1). The ad petitioner has not completed seven years yet he has been repatriated by Pr the impugned order dated 19.12.2017 (Annexure-P/5). It is submitted that the Government has taken a policy decision to repatriate the a hy officers who have completed seven years. The petitioner has not completed that period and yet has been repatriated whereas various ad other employees who have completed more than seven years have M been permitted to continue with the borrowing department. There exists no other justifiable reason which may result in issuing the of repatriation order.
rt Per contra, Shri B.D. Singh, learned Govt. Advocate submits ou that the Government Circular dated 29.02.2008 (Annexure-P/8) shows that if an employee is repatriated after completion of four years period C in deputation, there will be no need to seek permission in coordination h from both the departments, namely, lending and borrowing ig departments. In fact, the petitioner has completed more than eight H years of service on deputation in different capacities. He has no right to continue as deputation.
No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. This is trite law that deputationist has no indefeasible right to continue on deputation. The borrowing and lending departments at any time can repatriate such employee. Supreme Court in the case of Kunal Nanda Vs. Union of India, AIR2000 SC 2076 has held as under:
"The parent department or borrowing department at any point of time can seek/direct repatriation. The deputationist has no vested right to continue on deputation. Although this judgment is related with a case where the employee is already sent on deputation, principle flowing from it is clear that even after joining as deputationist, the employee has no indefeasible right to continue as deputationist or get absorbed in the borrowing department. In the present case, the petitioner did not join the borrowing department as deputationist. Thus, it cannot be said that any legal, vested or constitutional right of the petitioner is infringed."
In the light of aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court, I am unable to hold that the petitioner has legal, vested, constitutional or statutory right to remain on deputation. Whether or not the petitioner sh has completed seven years on deputation, his services can be e repatriated.
ad So far the question of continuance of other employees is Pr concerned, the question of parity in such matter does not arise. It is the prerogative of the lending/borrowing department to decide as to which a hy employee should continue in deputation. The principle of seniority or length of service etc. on deputation is not material for deciding the ad aspect of repatriation. For this reason, I find no merit in the contention M of the petitioner that other employees with a longer length of service are still working on deputation.
of As analysed, the petitioner is unable to establish any legal right rt to remain in deputation. Hence admission is declined. Petition is ou dismissed.
C (SUJOY PAUL) h JUDGE ig H Biswal Digitally signed by SHIBA NARAYAN BISWAL Date: 2018.03.19 17:30:33 +05'30'