Satish Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 5292 Del

$~17 & 18
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     W.P.(C) 6878/2013 & C.M.No.14901/2013
%                                  Date of decision: 19th November, 2013
      VINOD KUMAR GUPTA                                     ..... Petitioner
                          Through:      Ms.Shruti Agarwal, Adv.

                          versus

      UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                        ..... Respondents

                    Through:            Mr.C.M.Goyal, Adv. with
                                        Mr.Ravichandran, Team Commander,
                                        NSG

+     W.P.(C) 7085/2013 & C.M.No.15287/2013
      SATISH KUMAR                                   ..... Petitioner
                          Through:      Ms.Shruti Agarwal, Adv.

                          versus

      UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                        ..... Respondents
                    Through:            Ms.C.M.Goyal, Adv. with
                                        Mr.Ravichandran, Team Commander,
                                        NSG

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

GITA MITTAL, J (Oral)

1. Counter affidavits have been placed on record. Learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that no rejoinder is necessary.

2. With the consent of both the parties, matter has been heard.

3. The issue raised in these two writ petitions are identical and therefore

are taken together for consideration. Both the petitioners have challenged

their repatriation. The petitioners complain that they have been

discriminated against by the orders of repatriation to their parent department

whereby termination of their deputation has been effected after expiry of

three years instead of five years and without any justified reason, whereas

the three other medical officers of the Assam Rifles have been permitted a

deputation term of five years.

4. The facts giving rise to the present petitions to the extent necessary

are briefly noticed hereafter. Both the petitioners were commissioned as

Medical Officers with Assam Rifles. Dr.Vinod Kumar Gupta (the petitioner

in W.P.(C) No.6878/2013) was sent on deputation to the National Security

Guard (NSG) pursuant to order dated 21st December, 2010 wherein it was

clearly stipulated that the period of his deputation in the NSG shall be for a

period of three years subject to premature repatriation on unsuitability,

indiscipline, exigencies of service as well as if any other unforeseen factors

so demand. Dr.Satish Kumar (the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7085/2013) was

offered deputation with an identical stipulation. It is undisputed that so far

as the first writ petitioner is concerned, his tenure of deputation of three

years would come to an end on 30th November, 2013 and in case of second

petitioner, the tenure of deputation will expire in January, 2014.

5. It appears that by identical orders made on 24th August, 2012, the

NSG informed the authorities of Assam Rifles that the deputation of the

petitioners would end on expiry of three years tenure whereupon they would

be relieved. It is communicated in the same order that the Ministry of Home

Affairs had passed an order dated 26th July, 2012 approving the proposal of

the NSG to grant relaxation to Dr.Shailendra Kumar, Dr.Rajesh Kumar and

Dr.Bipin Kumar to complete the tenure of five years deputation with the

NSG. The petitioners contend that as these three doctors have been

permitted to complete the period of five years, the petitioners are also

entitled to relaxation for completion of tenure of five years granted to the

other three doctors. It is contended that they are also medical officers with

the Assam Rifles who proceeded on deputation with NSG in identical

circumstances.

6. The respondents have filed counter affidavits before this court

explaining not only the policy which governs appointment of persons on

deputation with the NSG but also the circumstances in which the three

medical officers were permitted a deputation tenure of five years. It is

explained that the NSG is the Federal Contingency Force with the Union of

India and is 100% deputation force. The personnel are taken from the feeder

organizations which consists of the Army, Central Armed Police Forces like

CRPF, BSF, CISF, ITBP, SSB and Assam Rifle etc. On the request of NSG,

the feeder organizations sponsor their candidates who are interviewed,

trained and inducted for a specified tenure of three years and five years as

per the policy of the feeder organization, subject to agreement thereon by the

Ministry of Home Affairs. Reference is made to the power of NSG to

premature repatriation of an official on grounds of unsuitability, indiscipline

and exigency of service etc. given the 'highest standard of discipline' which

is required by this organisation.

7. It is undisputed that the petitioners as well as the three other doctors

noticed above were selected on deputation to serve with the NSG as Team

Commander (Medical). The tenure of stipulation of three years has been

mentioned in the offer of appointment made to the petitioners. It is

undisputed that the offer of appointment was unconditionally accepted and

the officers have so served with the NSG.

8. So far as the policy which governs the deputation tenure is concerned,

it is pointed out that the notification in this regard was issued vide HQ NSG

L/No.E.305/43/2010/NSG/5997 dated 21st December, 2010 which stipulated

the deputation tenure as three years which had been fixed by the Ministry of

Home Affairs, the controlling ministry vide their UO No.I-21022/4/2007

Pers-II dated 24th July, 2008.

9. A request was made by the NSG for increasing the deputation tenure

of medical officers of the Assam Rifles from the stipulated period of three

years to five years. This request was favourably considered by the Ministry

of Home Affairs. By a common communication dated 14th October, 2011,

the Ministry directed that the deputation tenure of medical officers of Assam

Rifles with the NSG would be increased from three years to five years.

10. So far as Dr.Shailendra Kumar, Dr.Rajesh Kumar and Dr.Bipin

Kumar are concerned, their deputation period of three years was coming to

an end on 31st December, 2011 and 31st January, 2012 respectively. It was

during the currency of the policy declaration dated 14th October, 2011 that

the extension of their deputation tenure from three years to five years was

directed by the NSG enabling these three doctors to complete the period of

five years tenure on deputation. It has rightly not been disputed before us

that on 31st December, 2011 and 31st January, 2012 when the tenure of these

three doctors was coming to an end, the policy dated 14th October, 2011 was

invoked.

11. We are informed that the Assam Rifles had objected to the tenure of

the deputation increase to five years from three years of the medical officers.

It is also a fact that the deputation period had been increased without

consulting the department of Assam Rifles. The matter thus had to be

reconsidered by the respondents. On a review of the issue, an order dated

19th March, 2012 was issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. As such with

the approval of the competent authority, the decision was taken by NSG to

reduce the deputation tenure of medical officers of Assam Rifles in the NSG

from five years to three years. The order specifically notes that the

deputation tenure of Assam Rifles' personnel other than the medical officers

in the NSG would remain the same.

12. This order dated 19th March, 2012 was applicable to the case of the

petitioners. The respondents therefore took the decision to repatriate the

present petitioners on expiry of the period of three years. In these

circumstances, the decision to repatriate the petitioners cannot be faulted on

any legally tenable grounds.

13. An attempt has been made to press the plea of discrimination given

the extension of the tenure to the three doctors noted above. However, we

noted above that the extension was granted to them under the then extant

policy. The petitioners unfortunately cannot fault this extension as it was in

terms of the policy which was thereafter reviewed.

14. It is urged by Ms.Shruti Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners

that they had sent representations to the respondents which should have been

favourably considered. The respondents have rejected the same by a

communication dated 19th March, 2012 dealing at length with every

contention raised by the petitioner. The respondents have also explained the

circumstances in which the policy stipulation with regard to deputation

tenure so far as medical officers of the Assam Rifles were concerned, was

given.

15. It is trite that no person has a right to proceed or remain on

deputation. In this regard reference can be made to the pronouncement of

the Supreme Court in (2005) 8 SCC 394 Union of India through

Government of Pondicherry & Anr. Vs. V. Ramakrishnan & Ors.

16. The petitioners proceeded on deputation fully knowing that they were

so proceeding only for a period of three years. Their unconditional

acceptance of the offer of appointment binds them and they are estopped

from claiming a right to any extension thereof.

17. For all these reasons, we find no merit in these writ petitions, which

are hereby, dismissed.

(GITA MITTAL) JUDGE

(DEEPA SHARMA) JUDGE NOVEMBER 19, 2013 rb