Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
B. S. Parihar vs Union Of India Through on 2 December, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.4112/2013 New Delhi, this the 2nd day of December, 2013 Honble Mr. Justice Syed Rafat Alam, Chairman Honble Dr. Birendra Kumar Sinha, Member (A) B. S. Parihar S/o Sh. J. S. Parihar Flat No.380, Pocket-4, Sunview Apartment, Sector-11, Dwarka, New Delhi 110 075. Applicant. (By Advocate : Sh. K. C. Mittal with Ms. Ruchika Mittal). Versus Union of India through 1. Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs Central Sectt., North Block, New Delhi. 2. Director (Intelligence Bureau) Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, 35, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi. 3. Director Central Industrial Security Force Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. . Respondents. (By Advocate : Sh. Ashish Nischal for Sh. Rajinder Nischal) : O R D E R (ORAL) : Justice Syed Rafat Alam, Chairman:
At the outset, learned counsels for applicant and respondents stated that this matter may be heard and disposed of at this stage. Shri Rajinder Nischal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the respondents do not propose to file any reply.
2. The short grievance of the applicant in the instant application is that his request for absorption dated 27.02.2013 in Intelligence Bureau-Respondent No.2 has not been disposed of till date. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant joined as Constable in CISF in the year 1992. However, in 2008 he has been selected and sent on deputation in Intelligence Bureau for a period of five years, which period expired on 30.11.2013. He further relying on the judgment of Rameshwar Prasad vs. Managing Director U. P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited and Ors. [AIR 1999 SC 3443] submitted that it is true that a deputationist cannot claim absorption as a matter of right in the borrowing department, yet he has a right to be considered for such absorption. The Apex Court in Rameshwar Prasads case (supra) in para 14 of the judgment has observed that where the rule provides for absorption of employees on deputation then such employee working on deputation has a right to be considered for absorption in accordance with the said rules. He further submits that Respondent Nos.1 & 2 have taken a policy decision on 17.01.2012, a copy whereof is enclosed as Annexure A-7, wherein in para 8 & 12 it has been provided as under:-
8. The deputationist officer, including those who are presently on deputation would be deemed to have been relieved on the date of expiry of the deputation period, unless the competent authority has, with requisite approvals, extended the period of deputation in writing, prior to such date of expiry. It will be the responsibility of the immediate superior officer, in the Organization/Department, where the officer is on deputation to ensure that the deputationist does not overstay. 12. A CAPF personnel proposed to be absorbed by the borrowing Organisation/Department should have a minimum of 18 years of service on the date, on which the absorption is proposed by the borrowing Organization/Department. Also, the person proposed to be absorbed should already be on deputation with the said Organisation/Department. This condition of 18 years shall be read as 15 years in case of low medical category personnel. Learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, relying on the aforesaid policy decision submits that the respondents are at least required to take decision on the request made by the applicant.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that the representation/application of the applicant in regard to his absorption would be examined and an appropriate decision would be taken expeditiously in accordance with law.
4. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsels for the parties, and also in view of the fact that the representation/application of the applicant for absorption has not been disposed of, therefore, keeping in view the exposition of law by the Apex Court, we dispose of this application at this stage without expressing any opinion on merit, with the direction to the respondents to examine the representation/application of the applicant for absorption in the borrowing department and an appropriate decision be taken expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks and it would also be communicated to the applicant. It is further provided that till disposal of the applicants representation, he shall not be repatriated to his parent department. We made it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merit and it is for the respondents to take decision by recording reasons in accordance with rules or instructions issued in this regard.
5. The Original Application stands finally disposed of with the above order. Process Dasti.
(Dr. Birendra Kumar Sinha) (Syed Rafat Alam) Member (A) Chairman /pj/