Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. The respondents have submitted their counter affidavit. The other facts of the case being admitted, the respondents submit that it was necessary to obtain approval of the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry for extension beyond three years as per the instructions contained in DOP&T OM dated 17.06.2010. The file was submitted before the respondent no.1 which rejected the case of the applicant on the ground that as per the extant Recruitment Rules, there is no provision for deputation and directed that the applicant be repatriated. The respondents further submit that as the sanctioned deputation tenure of the applicant had expired on 03.09.2013, he has been continuing in IB beyond the sanctioned deputation tenure. In this regard, the respondents relied upon the DOP&T OM dated 01.03.2011 whereby continuance of deputationist in the borrowing department beyond the sanctioned deputation period has its own adverse implications for the deputationist with reference to increment, pension etc. Further, as the case of the applicant for extension of deputation period was not approved by the competent authorities, repatriation order was issued by the respondents on 28.03.2014 with a copy to the applicant through his controlling officer. However, on returning from leave on 31.03.2014, the applicant did not sign the attendance register and refused to accept his copy of repatriation order and left the office without any intimation. The respondents have also vehemently submitted that once the recruitment rules were notified in 2011, the previous recruitment rules of 2004 ceased to be in force and the new rules became operative and resultantly the persons, who were recruited under the Recruitment Rules, 2004 came to be governed by the new Recruitment Rules, 2011 with effect from the date of its promulgation, and that it is unreasonable on part of the applicant to contend that the persons recruited under the Recruitment Rules, 2004 would continue to be guided by these rules throughout the service tenure.

14. Now, we take up the third issue. It has been argued by the respondents that it is indeed a fact that in May, 2013 the applicant had requested for extension of deputation tenure for the 4th year and as per his request and under the directions of MHA, IB took up his case with SSB Authorities for providing NOC for considering his extension for the 4th year. This NOC was finally granted vide their letter dated November, 2013. Thereafter, the file was submitted to the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry for obtaining its approval for extension of the deputation period of the applicant beyond three years as per the instructions contained in DOP&T OM dated 17.06.2010. It is also submitted by the respondents that after due consideration, authorities in MHA rejected the case of the applicant on the ground that as per extant Recruitment Rules, 2011, there is no provision of deputation and, therefore, directed repatriation of the applicant. Since the sanctioned term of deputation expired on 03.09.2013, the applicant had been continuing in the borrowing department beyond the sanctioned tenure of deputation. The learned counsel for the respondents, in this regard, argued that continuance of the applicant in the borrowing department beyond the sanctioned tenure of deputation was strictly prohibited vide DOP&T OM dated 01.03.2011 with adverse implication for the deputationist with reference to increment, pension etc. The learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, added that as the request of the applicant for extension of his deputation tenure beyond three years has not been acceded to by the competent authority, his repatriation vide order 28.03.2014 issued by the respondent with a copy to the applicant, was justified. However, the applicant did not sign the attendance register after returning from leave on 31.03.2014, refused to accept copy of the repatriation order, and had left the office without any information. Thus, it is the argument of the respondents that it was the applicant who had acted irresponsibly and there was no arbitrary action involved on part of the respondents. On the other hand, we have already taken note of the argument of the applicant that mandatory prior notice of three months was must and the same has been disregarded which would tantamount to violation of rules of natural justice in the case of the applicant.

16. We have already taken note of the fact that the applicants request for extension of deputation tenure beyond three years had been refused at the level of the Secretary, MHA. It is also an admitted fact that for the period beyond three years of deputation spent by the applicant with the borrowing department, payments have already been made to him. The applicant has not been able to show any provision where if the deputationist continues beyond three years even by a couple of months or days, it is to be deemed that the deputation stands extended. Once the Secretary of the Department has declined to grant extension of deputation for the 4th year, the matter comes to an end. Hence, the repatriation order of the applicant had rightly been issued by the respondents as his stay beyond the sanctioned term of deputation was without authorization and could be called into question at any time. We are also sanguine that no show cause notice was required to be served in the instant case as it was not a premature repatriation as was being sought to be conveyed by the applicant. Once the permission for extension of deputation period beyond the sanctioned term has been declined, continuance of the applicant on deputation is not justified being unauthorized.

17. We have already discussed all the issues individually. We start with the general principle that a deputationist would have no right to continue on deputation or for absorption unless so provided by rules and statutes, subject to suitability. Where there is no provision in the recruitment rules for absorption, question does not arise for acceding to the request of the deputation for his permanent absorption. The applicant had been brought on deputation under Recruitment Rules, 2004, which ceased to exist after promulgation of Recruitment Rules, 2011 w.e.f. 03.06.2011. As already noted above, the respondents, after having obtaining the NOC from SSB that being the parent department of the applicant, submitted the file before the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry for extension of deputation tenure for the 4th year, but the same was declined. Hence, the applicants repatriation does not attract the clause of prior notice of three months not being a case of premature repatriation.