Karnataka High Court
Mallikarjun Jaka vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 13 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2156
WP No. 200253 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT PETITION NO.200253 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI MALLIKARJUN JAKA S/O CHANNABASAPPA JAKA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
OCC: WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KIADB,
KALABURAGI, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 75 NGO,
LAYOUT,
SEDAM ROAD KALABURAGI-585101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.R. RAJGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARED FOR
SRI KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by KHAJAAMEEN AND:
L MALAGHAN
Location: HIGH 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS (SERVICES-A),
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2156
WP No. 200253 of 2024
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
KIADB, NO. 49 4TH FLOOR,
KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
4. SRI ASHOK KHANDRE
S/O NOT KNOWN,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
OCC: WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KALABURAGI,
RESIDENCE OF KALABURAGI-585101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ARATI PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI A. M. NAGRAL, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI ASHOK HARNALLI SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARED FOR
SMT. AMBIKA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4 )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN
RELATED TO FILE NUMBER, LO.E 285 SE-ASU 2023 AND C. I-
06-IAP (E) 2024, ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION IN NO:LO.E 285 SE-ASU DATED
30-12-2023 AND CI-06-IAP(E) 19-01-2024 PASSED BY THE 2 ND
AND 1ST RESPONDENT RESPECTIVELY AS PER ANNEXURE G
AND H TO WRIT PETITION. ISSUE ANY APPROPRIATE WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT
AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE AND ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
26.02.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2156
WP No. 200253 of 2024
ORDER
The petitioner herein is a seeking a writ of certiorari in respect of the order passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 dated 30.12.2023 and 19.01.2024 by which the services of the petitioner was repatriated to parental Department i.e. Hutti Gold Mines Company Limited and his place the respondent No.4 was appointed on deputation.
2. The factual matrix of the present case is that the petitioner was working as Executive Engineer at KIADB Kalaburagi. He was originally appointed as a Deputy Manager in Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd., which is a Government undertaking, coming under the respondent No.1 department of Industries and Commerce. The petitioner was sent on deputation to the KIADB i.e. respondent No.3 on 19.10.2022 as per the order at Annexure-A and he was placed on deputation as per the order at Annexure-B. He joined to the duties at KIADB on 06.12.2022 as per the Annexure-C. The petitioner working as Executive Engineer at Zonal Office of the -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:2156 WP No. 200253 of 2024 KIADB, had not completed his tenure of the five years on deputation.
3. The petitioner contend that the respondent No.4 was working as Executive Engineer in Public Works Department (PWD hereinafter) that is respondent No.2, he was on deputation to Urban Development Authority, Kalaburagi since about four months. The respondent No.2 i.e. the Department of PWD by office memorandum dated 30.12.2023 withdraw the order of deputation of the respondent No.4 from the urban Development Authority, Kalaburagi and he was placed in hands of the respondent No.1 i.e. Industries and Commerce to enable the respondent No.4 to be appointed as Executive Engineer at KIADB in the place of the petitioner as per Annexure-G. Thereafter, by OM dated 19.01.2024 the 1st respondent withdrew the services of the petitioner from the KIADB and he was repatriated to the parent department i.e. Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd., only to accommodate respondent No.4. Therefore, being aggrieved by the said -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:2156 WP No. 200253 of 2024 order, the petitioner approached this Court in this writ petition.
4. The petitioner contends that the impugned official memorandum issued by the respondent No.1 at Annexure-G and H dated 30.12.2023 and 19.01.2024 are illegal and contrary to law which are inconsistent with the settled legal position and is in violation of guidelines issued by the Government as per the Government Order dated 7.6.2001 which has been accepted to be having the force of statute. It is contended that the petitioner was working as a Deputy Manager at Hutti Goldmines Company Limited which is under control of respondent No.1 as well as the Department of Mines and Geology. On the request made by the respondent No.3, petitioner was sent on deputation to the respondent No.3- KIADB and he reported to duty on 07.12.2022. Even before the expiry of the term specified under the Government order, the petitioner was withdrawn and repatriated to the parent Department. Therefore, the petitioner contends that the Annexure-G and H are -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:2156 WP No. 200253 of 2024 violative of the settled proposition of law and they are liable to be quashed.
5. It is also contended that the respondent No.2- PWD is the parent department of the respondent No.4 and he was on deputation to Urban Development Authority under the impugned order. The services were withdrawn by the respondent No.2 and then in turn he was sent on deputation to the respondent No.3 through the respondent No.1. Therefore, it is contended that the orders are only to accommodate the respondent No.4 and as such the said decision is arbitrary and liable to be deferred with.
6. On issuance of notice respondents have appeared through their counsels.
7. This Court by order dated 22.01.2024, had passed an interim order of stay of the Annexure-G & H. After appearance the respondent No.4 has filed an application for vacating the interim order. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2156 WP No. 200253 of 2024
8. When the matter stood so, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents have appeared and submitted that the matter may be taken up for final disposal. Therefore, by consent of both the sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
9. Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri. M.R.Rajgopal for Sri. Krupa Sagar Patil appearing for the petitioner and learned Senior counsel Sri. Ashok Harnalli for Smt. Ambika Patil appearing for respondent No.4 and also heard the arguments by High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel Sri. A.M.Nagaral appearing for respondent No.3.
10. The learned Senior counsel Sri. M.R.Rajgopal would submit that Hutti Gold Mines Company Limited is a parent department of the petitioner. He was on deputation to the respondent No.3 KIADB and he joined service only on 07.12.2022. He submits that the guidelines issued by the Government dated 7.6.2001 have -8- NC: 2024:KHC-K:2156 WP No. 200253 of 2024 to be followed while the petitioner is being disturbed from his posting. He contends that as per the said guidelines, the petitioner has to complete at least a period of five years and therefore since he had not completed the said minimum period on deputation, the impugned order is illegal. He submits that the scheme of the deputation require the parent department being requested by the borrowing department and then the parent department has to place the services of the government servant at the hands of the borrowing department and then there would be order of deputation. It is submitted that in the case on hand, the borrowing department could not repatriate the government servant without the consent of the parent department. Therefore, he submits that there is violation of the scheme of the deputation. He further urged that the transfer guidelines are having a statutory force as held by this Court in catena of decisions. He also submits that the guidelines say that reasons are to be given as per the Rule No.7 and 9. In this regard he rely on the judgment in the case of Rajashekar M. V/s The State of Karnataka -9- NC: 2024:KHC-K:2156 WP No. 200253 of 2024 and Others1. Then he submitted that the petitioner has also filed additional grounds along with an I.A. He submits that earlier petitioner was on deputation to the Water Resources Department and there he had opted for absorption of his services in the said department. However, despite a consent being given by the parent department of the petitioner, his services were not absorbed in the Water Resources Department and therefore he had filed a writ petition. The said writ petition was dismissed but the writ appeal is pending before this Court. Therefore he submits that the repatriation of the petitioner to the parent department is not proper and it is illegal. It is also submitted that though the order of deputation of respondent No.4 is approved by the Chief Minister, there are no reasons assigned.
11. Per contra, learned Senior counsel Sri. Ashok Harnahalli appearing for the respondent No.4 would 1 MANU/KA/5189/2018
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2156 WP No. 200253 of 2024 submit that the petitioner was on deputation at Water Resource Department for a period of ten years i.e. from 2012 to 2022. Thereafter, only for about ten months he was in parent department and then again he was deputed to respondent No.3-KIADB in the year 2022. He also points out that though the post held by the petitioner at KIADB was of the higher pay scale, he was appointed on his own pay scale which is improper and illegal. Therefore, it is submitted that he could not have been sent on deputation. He further argued that the guidelines issued by the government laid down that every year, the deputations have to be reviewed and if there are officials who are eligible, then the officials on deputation have to be repatriated to the parent department. Therefore, by relying on the Rule 6 of the Transfer Guidelines, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submit that no fault can be found in respect of the impugned orders. It is also submitted that the appointment of the officials on own pay scale has been discontinued by the Government
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2156 WP No. 200253 of 2024 in view of the order dated 12.09.2023. Therefore he submits that the impugned order need not be disturbed.
12. I have gone through the rival submissions and the material made available before me.
13. The only question would that would fall for determination is whether the impugned order which has been approved by the Chief Minister in pursuance to the transfer guidelines, need to be supported by reasons and is prima-facie illegal as it violates the Transfer/Deputation guidelines?.
14. The fact that the petitioner was initially appointed in the Hutti Gold Mines and he was promoted as Deputy Manager (Civil) is not in dispute. While the petitioner was working in Water Resources Department at Kalaburagi on deputation, he was given an option to be absorbed in the Water Resources Department. The additional facts, sought to be pleaded by the petitioner
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2156 WP No. 200253 of 2024 clearly indicate that he was appointed as Engineer in Hutti Gold Mines Limited in February-2005 then he was promoted as a Deputy Manager in the year 2010. From 20.04.2012, the petitioner was sent on deputation to Water Resources Department where consent was sought from the interested officials on deputation for absorption. He extended his consent for absorption. But while the final list was prepared, his name was not included and as such he had challenged the same before this Court in W.P.No.201920/2021. The said writ petition came to be dismissed and therefore the Writ Appeal No.200106/2022 was filed and the same is pending. This would indicate that the petitioner was on deputation to the Water Resources Department for about 10 years.
15. In the year 2022, as per Annexure-A, his services were placed in the hands of the respondent No.3. Accordingly, he joined to the duties on 07.12.2022. It is also not in dispute that he was working in parent department only for a period of ten months before he was
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2156 WP No. 200253 of 2024 deputed to the respondent No.3-KIADB. Such deputation of the petitioner with respondent No.3-KIADB was on his own pay scale. Thus it is evident that the petitioner was of the lower pay scale but he was appointed to a post of the higher pay scale at KIADB on his own payscale. 16. The circular of the Government No. DPAR 14 ser 2023 dated 12.09.2023 shows that while the deputations are made from one department to another department, such deputation shall not be for more than five years and in the absence of Special Orders, the deputations are to be cancelled and the official is to be repatriated to the parent department. The circular also says that after the period of five years, the Government servant has to spend a cooling of period of two years in his parent department. So also that deputing the official on his own pay scale to a post of the higher rank has to be stopped. Evidently, the rule of cooling period of 2 years was not followed in the case of the petitioner or the respondant No. 4. The deputation of the petitioner for ten
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2156 WP No. 200253 of 2024 years at WRD department is in clear violation of the transfer guidelines of 2013.
17. The Rule 6 of the transfer guidelines of 2001 deal with the deputations. It reads as below:
6. ¸ÀPª Àë ÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ dªÁ¨ÁÝjUÀ¼ÀÄ:-
¸ÀPª Àë ÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ ªÀUÁðªÀu/É ¤AiÉÆÃd£É CxÀªÁ £ÉªÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁqÀĪÁUÀ F PɼÀV£À CA±ÀU¼ À £ À ÀÄ ß ¸ÀºÀ RavÀ¥r À ¹PÉƼÀv î ÀPz ÀÌ ÀÄ,Ý -
(C) AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÞ UÀA©üÃgÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ½zÀÝ°è ºÁUÀÆ DvÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÞ E¯ÁSÁ «ZÁgÀu/É Qæ«Ä£À¯ï £ÀqÀªÀ½ ¥ÁægA À ©ü¸¯ À ÁVzÀÝ°è CxÀªÁ ¨ÁQ¬ÄzÀÝ°è CxÀªÁ DvÀ£À£ÀÄß C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉUÉƽ¸À®Ä GzÉÃÝ ²¸À¯ÁVzÀÝ°è CAvÀºª À ÀjUÉ ¸ÀÆPÀëªÀÄ ºÀÄzÉU Ý À½UÉ/ PÁAiÀÄðPÁj ºÀÄzÉÝU½ À UÉ £ÉëĸÀzÉà CªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä «gÀÄzÀÞ ¨ÁQ¬ÄgÀĪÀ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ°è ºÀ¸ÀÛPÃÉë ¥À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«®è¢gÀĪÀAvÀºÀ PÁAiÀÄðPÁjAiÉÄÃvÀgÀ (none-
executive) ºÀÄzÉU
Ý ½
À UÉ £ÉëĸÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄ.Ý ªÀÄÄzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ,
E¯ÁSÁ «ZÁgÀuÉ/Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ªÉÆPÀzª
ÀÝ ÉÄ ¨ÁQ¬ÄgÀĪÀ
¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀ£À£ÀÄß CªÀ£ÀÄ PÉÆÃgÀĪÀ ºÀÄzÉU
Ý É
¤AiÉÆÃf¸À¨ÁgÀzÀÄ.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2156
WP No. 200253 of 2024
(D) AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà MAzÀÄ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ MAzÀÄ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¤AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ UÀgÀµÀ× CªÀ¢üAiÀÄÄ 5 ªÀµÀð;
i. »A¢£À ¤AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀiÁvÀÈ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ°è 2 ªÀµðÀ UÀ¼À ZÁvÀĪÀiÁð¸ÀåCªÀ¢ü (PÀÆ°AUï D¥sï ¦ÃjAiÀÄqï) ªÀÄÄV¸ÀzÀ PÁðj £ËPÀgg À £ À ÀÄß »A¢£À ¤AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ°è 5 ªÀµÀð PÀ¼A É iÀÄ¢zÀÝgÀÆ ¤AiÉÆÃf¸À®Ä ¥ÀjUÀt¸  À¨ÁgÀzÀÄ. M§â ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀ££ À ÀÄß MAzÉà ºÀÄzÉU Ý É ¥ÀzÃÉ ¥ÀzÃÉ ¤AiÉÆÃf¸ÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ¤µÉâü¸À¯ÁVzÉ; ii. E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ°è£À MAzÀÄ ºÀÄzÉA Ý iÀÄ£ÀÄß E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ªÀÈAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ vÀÄA§®Ä D E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÁzÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ®¨sÀå«®è¢zÀÝ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðUÀ¼À°è D ºÀÄzÉU Ý É E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgg À £ À ÀÄ ß ¤AiÉÆÃf¸ÀĪÀAw®è. F jÃwAiÀÄ ¤AiÉÆÃd£ÉUÀ¼£ À ÀÄ ß ªÀiÁrzÀÝ°è ¥Àæw ªÀµðÀ CªÀÅUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¥ÀÄ£Àgï¥Àj²Ã°¹ D ºÀÄzÉA Ý iÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀA§®Ä ¸ÀÆPÀÛ E¯ÁSÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ®¨sÀågÁzÀ°è ¤AiÉÆÃfvÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀÈ E¯ÁSÉUÉ »AzÀÄjV¸ÀvÀPz ÀÌ ÀÄÝ;
18. So far as the deputation guidelines are concerned, it is evident that rule 6 (Aa)(ii) lays down that if the eligible officials are not available as per the C & R
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2156 WP No. 200253 of 2024 rules, then only the officials of the other department may be deputed to such post. Whenever there are such deputations, every year it has to be reviewed and soon after the eligible officials are available, the officials on deputation have to be repatriated their parent department. This rule clearly indicate that if the eligible candidates are available, then every year such deputations have to be reviewed. This rule would invariably indicate that the rule of five years on deputation is not absolute. The five years rule is qualified by the availability of the eligible government servant who can be posted to such post. In other words the deputations are to be resorted to only if the eligible candidates are not available. However, the deputation on own pay scale, to a post of higher rank is also prohibited as per the circular and the said circular refers to the G.O. dated 07.06.2013.
19. The next aspect to be considered is whether the Chief Minister has to assign reasons while approving the cancellation of deputation of the petitioner and deputation
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2156 WP No. 200253 of 2024 of the respondent No. 4. A Division Bench of this Court in case of Smt. Veena H.S. V/s The State of Karnataka and others2 has observed as below:
"In this legal background, if the cases of the petitioners are to be considered keeping in view the findings recorded in Rajasehkar M's case supra, then it would be difficult for the State Government to refer to each and every individual and assign the reasons stipulated as against their transfers. Moreover, in a given peculiar circumstances fo the case on hand, we find it relevant to state that Rule 9 of the Transfer Guidelines cannot be read in isolation the Transfer Guidelines, 2013, as the same, if read in conjuncture with the very principles and object of the Transfer then the present transfer seems to be one that is covered under the ambit of Rule9(a) of the Transfer Guidelines of 07.06.2013. Hence, it is on this ground we opine that, under peculiar circumstances, like the case on hand, it is not mandatory for the respondent-State to script the reasons as contemplated under Rule 2 W.P.No.2024786/2023 dated 22.1.2024
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2156 WP No. 200253 of 2024 9(a)(i) to (viii) of the Transfer guidelines supra, provided the same shall be reflected in the records that are made available before obtaining prior-approval from the Chief Minister. In the present case on hand, if the impugned Transfer Notifications are read along with the service records of these petitioners, then it can be clearly seen that the petitioners are holding one or the other post in one place itself for considerable period."
20. It is evident that in coming to such conclusion, the Division Bench of this Court had bestowed its attention on a catena of decisions and also the rule 7, 8 and 9 of the Transfer Guidelines. This Court does not find any reason to hold that each and every order has to be approved by the Chief Minister with reasons. Moreover, rule 7(c) does not pertain to the deputations. It only refers to the transfers. Though the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt Jennifer Lolita C Vs State of
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2156 WP No. 200253 of 2024 Karnataka and others3 holds that the 2013 guidelines refer to the transfers, they are applicable to the deputations also, it was rendered while considering deputation on the ground of impending retirement of the government servant and her capacity to handle the post. It does not specifically refer to the approval of the deputation by the Chief Minister. Thus it is evident that though it was not mandatory for the department to obtain the approval of the Chief Minister, such an approval has been obtained.
21. By way of additional grounds, the petitioner has stated that he was first appointed in 2005 as Engineer in Hatti Goldmines Company Ltd, and thereafter he was promoted and was working as Dy Manager (Civil). He was on deputation to Water resources Department for about 10 years at Kalaburagi since 2010. Then he consented to be absorbed in that Department, but his name was rejected. He filed Writ Petition and on its dismissal, ha has preferred 3 WP No. 3357/2022 dated 12.4.2022
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2156 WP No. 200253 of 2024 a Writ Appeal, which is pending. The fact that he was serving in and around Kalaburagi for more than 10 years is not disputed. So also it is evident that for most part of his service, he did not work in his parent department, i.e., Hatti Goldmines Company Ltd, is also an admitted fact. In view of the Circular issued by the Govt dated 12.09.2023, the contention of the petitioner that he did not complete his tenure of 5 years on deputation to the respondent No. 3 KIADB cannot be countenanced. When viewed in this background, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs S N Maity4, which held that curtailment of the tenure of 5 years deputation without any reasons is unsustainable, cannot be made applicable to the present case.
22. The next contention of the petitioner is that parent department did not choose to repatriate but it was the borrowing department which sent the petitioner back to the parent department to accommodate the respondent 4 (2015) 4 SCC 164
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2156 WP No. 200253 of 2024 No. 4. The judgment of a Division Bench of this court in Sri C B Chikkalagi Vs State of Karnataka 5 has observed as below:
"iii) To put it shortly, the idea of deputation involves three ingredients namely, lending department, the borrowing department and the lent hand, ordinarily, a valid deputation envisages a consensus amongst all the three agencies involved, unless the law otherwise states; Rule 50 of KCS Rules provides for deputation of a Government servant from one department to another and his entitlement to the emoluments on such deputation; Rule 50(1) reads as under:
"50. (1) When a Government servant is permanently transferred or deputed from one department to another under the provisions of Rule 16 of the Karnataka State Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, he will draw pay in the new post at the same stage in which he was drawing in the old post and earn 5 WP 226384/2020 dtd 28.9.2020
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2156 WP No. 200253 of 2024 the next increment on the date on which he would have earned it had he continued in the old post."
Rules 15 & 16 of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 provide for the disciplinary proceedings for the misconduct of deputationists; going by the text and context of these rules, it can be safely stated that in the matter of deputation in Government service, an employee may not have much say; however, no department can thrust it's employee on deputation to another, as a general rule; similarly, a borrowing department cannot cut short the tenure of the deputation unilaterally, in the absence of authorization."
23. It is significant to note that the Circular dated 12.09.2023 mandates that the deputation of the Govt. servants on own payscale to a higher post should be avoided and there shall be cooling period of 2 years between two successive deputations; and the Transfer guidelines mandate that the deputation to be reviewed every year. In the case on hand, there is authorization for
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2156 WP No. 200253 of 2024 cutting short the tenure of the deputation. Obviously, such authorization is in accordance with the Circular and the Transfer guidelines. Therefore, there is no such violation of the scheme of deputations as urged by the petitioner.
24. As submitted by the learned Government Advocate for respondent No. 1 to 3, the deputation of respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 3 KIADB cannot be found fault with since he is in the same pay scale of the deputed post; but the pay scale of the petitioner is of the lower rank. Obviously, the deputation of the respondent No. 4 is in consonance with the transfer guidelines and the circular of 2023.
25. The above discussion shows that the petitioner cannot seek the quashment of cancellation of his repatriation to the parent department/institution since the respondent No.4 is serving in the same pay scale of the deputed post and whereas the petitioner is serving in the lower rank. It is also clear that the petitioner has never
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2156 WP No. 200253 of 2024 undergone the cooling off period since 2010, when he went on deputation. Under these circumstances, the petition is bereft of any merits and thus is liable to be dismissed.
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SMP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9