Allahabad High Court
Ghanshyam Prasad vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 9 October, 2013
Bench: Rajes Kumar, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 56427 of 2013
Petitioner :- Ghanshyam Prasad
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar,J.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner was Assistant Development Officer, Block Charganva, Gorakhpur, Social Welfare Department, who has been sent to the Minority Welfare and Waqf Department on deputation for a period of one year. The said period has been extended from time to time and now three years' period has passed, which expired on 31st March, 2013. The respondents have refused to extend the further period of deputation and by the order dated 31st May, 2013, the petitioner has been repatriated back to his parent department, which order is being challenged by means of the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was suspended and after revocation of the suspension, when he has not been allowed to join the post he was holding, he preferred Writ Petition No. 23763 of 2013, which has been entertained and an interim order has been passed, permitting the petitioner to function as the District Minority Welfare Officer, Kushi Nagar and the said interim order is still continuing, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to continue to work as the District Minority Welfare Officer, Kushi Nagar in the Minority Welfare and Waqf Department.
We do not find any error in the impugned order and there is no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was the employee of the Social Welfare Department, who has been sent on deputation to the Minority Welfare and Waqf Department only for a period of one year where he worked on deputation for a period of three years and has rightly been repatriated back to his parent department. In the Writ Petition No.23763 of 2013, the claim of the petitioner is that prior to suspension, the petitioner was working as the District Minority Welfare Officer, Kushi Nagar and after revocation of the suspension he has been posted in a different department and has not been permitted to function as the District Minority Welfare Officer, Kushi Nagar. On these facts at that stage, the said writ Petition has been entertained and the interim order has been passed. The interim order passed in the said writ petition is not an impediment in passing the impugned order, repatriating back the petitioner to his parent department, after expiry of the period of deputation.
On 4.8.1984, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Development Officer in Social Welfare Department. By the letter dated 4.4.2008 and 27.10.2008 written by the Secretary, U.P. Government to the Principal Secretaries Heads of the various Departments of U.P. applications were invited from those employees, who are willing to for the post of Regional District Minority Welfare Officer/Deputy Director in the pay-scale of Rs.10000-15200 and for District Minority Social Officer in the pay-scale of Rs.0600-10500 on the transfer of service basis. It appears that the petitioner applied for the post of District Minority Welfare Officer. By the order of the Principal Secretary dated 27.7.2009, the petitioner has been appointed as the District Minority Welfare Officer, temporarily on the transfer of service basis for a period of one year or till the selection of the regular candidate by the Public Service Commission. It appears that the period of one year has been extended from time to time and now three years period has been expired on 31.3.2013. The last extension upto the period of 31.3.2013 was given by the Government Order dated 19.10.2012. By the impugned Government Order dated 31.5.2013, the Government has declined to extend the period of deputation on the ground that there is no reason to extend the period in the public interest and has sent back the petitioner to his parent department.
There is no dispute that both, the Social Welfare Department and the Minority Welfare Department are two separate departments. There is nothing to suggest by any of the Government Order, referred herein-above, that the petitioner was to be absorbed in the Minority Welfare Department at any point of time. The appointment letter dated 27.7.2009 reveals that the petitioner has been appointed temporarily as a District Minority Officer for a period of one year on transfer of service basis or till the regular selection of the candidate by the Public Service Commission, whichever is earlier, which the petitioner has accepted and joined. There is nothing to show that the petitioner at any stage has been absorbed in the Minority Welfare Department. There is no pleading in the writ petition that the lien of the service of the petitioner in the Social Welfare Department has ceased.
In view of the above, we are of the view that the petitioner has been sent to Minority Welfare Department on deputation and on the expiry of the period of engagement the repatriation of the petitioner to his parent department cannot be said to be justified.
In the case of Kunal Nanda v Union of India, reported in AIR 2000 SC 2076, the Apex Court has held that the employee who has been sent on deputation has no right to claim absorption.
In the case of U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam v P.K. Bhatnagar, reported in 2007 (14) SCC 498, the Apex Court has held that mere fact that he has spent several years in service in the department where he has been sent on deputation will not alter the position from that of a deputationist to a regular employee.
In the case of Union of India v S.A. Khailiq Pusha, MANU/SC/1536/2009, the Apex Court has held that the basic principal underlying deputation itself is that the person concerned can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in his substantive position therein at the instance of either of the departments and there is no vested right in such a person to continue for long on deputation or get absorbed in the department to which he had gone on deputation.
In the case of Ratilal B. Soni and others v. State of Gujarat and others, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1132, the Apex Court has held that employee on deputation do not get any right to be absorbed on deputation post and can be reverted back to his parent department at any time.
In view of the above, the writ petition, being devoid of merits, fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.10.2013
bgs/
