Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The petitioner has challenged an office order bearing No.©12(6J)¦Dgï/E-88397/24-25 dated 19.09.2024 issued by the respondent No.1 repatriating his services to parent department.

2. The petitioner contends that he was appointed in the department of Public Works and was deputed to work under the respondent No.1 in terms of the notification dated 11.03.2022. Thereafter on 17.06.2022, the respondent No.1 posted the petitioner to work under the respondent No.2 as Assistant Engineer in Ward-149, Varthur/Whitefield Sub- division. The petitioner claimed that he was discharging his duties sincerely and diligently without any adverse remark. When things stood thus, the petitioner contends that in contravention of the transfer guidelines and without there being any public or administrative reason, in the middle of the academic year, the respondent No.1 issued impugned office order repatriating his services to parent department. The petitioner is therefore, before this Court challenging the said order.

NC: 2024:KHC:40086

3. The petitioner contends that the impugned order is passed in the middle of the academic year without there being any public or administrative reason and without obtaining specific approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. He contends that his children are admitted to college and if the impugned order is given effect to, he and his family would be put to irreparable hardship. He also contends that if his repatriation is done after the completion of the general transfers, specific permission of the Hon'ble Chief Minister is to be obtained.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and contended that the transfer guidelines was equally applicable to a case of deputation and hence, the petitioner could not have been repatriated.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed in the department of Public Works and was deputed to work under the respondent No.1 by notification dated 11.03.2022. As per the transfer guidelines that was in force then, such NC: 2024:KHC:40086 deputations were impermissible, if there was any suitable person available with the respondent No.1 and instructions were issued by the State Government to repatriate the services of all those persons, who were on such deputation. The petitioner has completed his minimum tenure of more than two years in the post of Assistant Engineer with the respondent No.1. Therefore, the respondent No.1 was entitled to repatriate the services of the petitioner. The petitioner being a person on deputation, cannot have any right to continue in the deputed post and therefore, his repatriation cannot be challenged. In that view of the matter, there is no error committed by the respondent No.1 in repatriating the services of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner that the transfer guidelines is violated, is without any basis.