T.M. Tripathi vs Narmada Hydroelectric Development ... on 20 August, 2015
4. By filing a detailed return, the respondents have
reiterated their stand and have further placed the fact s
to show that the decision in the case of Mohinder Kumar
Sharma (supra) would not be applicable in the present
case, on account of distinguishable features, as pointed
out in the return. It is reiterated by the respondents that
in fact for the purpose of training the petitioners are
being sent to work in certain projects of the respondent
No.2 and it cannot be said to be either transfer or a
deputation posting under the different employer. The
clarification to that effect has been issued on 7 th August,
2015 wherein it has been mentioned that such an
assignment to the petitioners be treated as 'tour' and the
petitioners would be entitled to all the benefits including
the travelling allowance and all other claims of the
petitioners would be regulated in terms of the rules
applicable to the petitioners. With force, it has been
stated that the petitioners are not being sent on transfer,
but are being sent on training in view of the MOU and
4
that being so the petition against the impugned order is
not maintainable. Further it is stated that in terms of the
unified policy of the Central Government for the speedy
completion of the different projects, such human
resources activities have to be done and in that, if the
interference in writ proceedings is done, that would
hamper the progress of the projects, which would not be
in the interest of the nation. On these counts, it is
contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.