P.S.N. Rao vs National Project Implementation ...
1992 Latest Caselaw 513 Del

Citation : 1992 Latest Caselaw 513 Del
Judgement Date : 8 September, 1992

Delhi High Court

P.S.N. Rao vs National Project Implementation ... on 8 September, 1992

Equivalent citations: 49 (1993) DLT 365

Author: M Narain

Bench: M Narain, Jaspal

JUDGMENT

Mohinder Narain, J.

(1) We have heard the parties at length. What emerges from the documents on record, and from what we have heard inCourt, it is clear that the petitioner was on deputation. Being on deputation,law relating to deputation will come into operation, what has been succinctly laid down by the D.B. of Madras High Court Registrar v. R. Periaswamy and Another , (3) Slr 646. In this case, D.B. also referred the case reported as Air 1991 Punjab and Haryana 113 (Lajpat Nath Mago v.Governor of Haryana and Others). According to the principles enunciated in the Madras Judgment, it is clear that a person who is borrowed from one department and is asked to work in another department temporarily, if he is reverted back to the original department, there is no question of the termination of any service in the proper sense of the term. In other words his services in the transferred department have come to an end. He goes back to the parent department. That is because he has lien in the parent department. That lien continues so long as that lien continues, he has a right to go back to that department.

(2) In the case before us, the petitioner was working with the State ofOrissa. He went on deputation to the National Project Implementation Unit of the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Education. The department to which he went on deputation has put an end to his deputation and has asked him to go hack. Inasmuch as his lien with the Orissa Government continues to exist, he will get benefit of the same, whatever the benefits are available there under. As far as he is losing his certain benefits which accrued to him while he was on deputation, the deputation having come to an end, the financial benefits must have also come to anend.

(3) The petitioner who has appeared in person, has not been able to give us any judgment contrary to the judgment of the Madras High Court and the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. We respectfully agree with the observations of both the aforesaid judgments and in this view of the matter; we decline to entertain the present writ petition.

(4) The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.