Delhi High Court
Shri Chander Pal Singh, S/O Late ... vs Union Of India (Uoi), Through Its ... on 28 February, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003 IIAD Delhi 772, 104 (2003) DLT 8, 2003 (67) DRJ 637, 2003 (3) SLJ 431 Delhi
Author: V Jain
Bench: V Jain, B Chaturvedi
JUDGMENT
Vijender Jain, J.
1. Rule D.B.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the order of the respondent declining to give no objection certificate for permanent absorption of the petitioner in National Crime Record Bureau.
3. We had issued notice to the respondents on the point of discrimination alleged by the petitioner. It was contended before us by learned counsel for the petitioner that out of six persons who went on deputation to NCRB from Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), the respondent has granted NOC for permanent absorption in case of three persons and in an arbitrary manner was not granting NOC in case of other three persons including the petitioner.
4. We have been told by learned counsel for the respondents that other two persons have already left NCRB, though they have not yet joined the parent organization, i.e. ITBP. In any event of the matter we are not concerned as these two persons are not before us.
5. Counsel for the respondent has contended before us that no discrimination has been meted out to the petitioner. He has contended that the three other persons in whose case no objection certificate for absorption has been issued by the respondent-ITBP were Constables, whereas the petitioner was promoted as Head Constable on 21st October, 2000 and on his return from deputation he will be joining as Head Constable. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner has given undertaking that he will not claim his promotion as Head Constable with parent department, i.e. ITBP. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon Rameshwar Prasad Vs. Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirmal Nigam Ltd. & Ors.. On the other hand, Mr. Sud, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that in Kunal Nanda Vs. Union of India & Anr. , Supreme Court has held that a person can at any point of time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in his substantive position 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 has gone on deputation.
6. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. In view of the fact that the petitioner has been promoted as Head Constable w.e.f. 21st December, 2000 vide order of Director General of ITBP dated 25.1.2000, we do not agree with the arguments of the petitioner that discrimination has been meted out to him as admittedly the other three persons who have gone on deputation with NCRB were constables and petitioner has been promoted as Head Constable. It is a policy decision in the domain of the parent department to frame a policy as to whether its employees could be sent out for deputation either for a temporary period or for a fixed period or for absorption. The authority cited by learned counsel for the petitioner does not help the case of the petitioner as that authority discusses the parameter to be followed by borrower department. The authority of Kunal Nanda's case (supra) cited by counsel for the respondent squarely covers the present petition. It has been observed by the Supreme Court in the following terms :
"On the legal submissions also made there are no merits whatsoever. It is well settled that unless the claim of the deputationist for a permanent absorption in the department where he works on deputation is based on any statutory rule, regulation or order having the force of law, a deputationist cannot assert and succeed in any such claim for absorption. The basic principle 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.........."
7. Following the law laid down in Kunal Nanda's case (supra), we hold that petitioner has no vested right to get absorbed in the NCRB. The petition has no merit. Same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
