Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1678 Gua
Judgement Date : 18 May, 2022
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010093362022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/171/2022
GO 004293N SRI SURYAWANSHI PANDURANG SAYAJI
S/O LATE SAYAJI PANDURANG SURYAWANSHI, P/R/O F-2, RUKMINI VILA
APARTMENT, 3RD LANE, JAYSINGPUR-416101, DIST- KOLHAPUR,
MAHARASHTRA AND PRESENTLY SERVING AS PRIVATE SECRETARY AT
HQ CE PROJECT UDAYAK, PIN-931715 C/O 99 APO
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY JOINT SECRETARY (BR), MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
(EARLIER DESIGNATED AS SECRETARY (BRDB)), ROOM NO. 418, B WING
4TH FLOOR SENA BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110011
2:DIRECTOR GENERAL
BORDER ROADS ORGANIZATION
SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN
RING ROAD
DELHI CANTT.
NEW DELHI-110010
3:ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL (EAST)
BORDER ROADS ORGANIZATION
HQ ADGBR (EAST)
JALUKBARI
LANKESWAR
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN-781014
4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
HQ CE (P) UDAYAK
DOOMDOOMA
DIST-TINSUKIA
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/3
PIN-931715 C/O 99 APO
5:THE CHAIRMAN
DRDO
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DTE OF PERSONNEL (PERS-AA1)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
DEFENCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION (DRDO)
ROOM NO. 266
DRDO BHAWAN
RAJAJI MARG
NEW DELHI-11001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. R BORAH
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) MR. N. KOTISWAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
:: O R D E R ::
18.05.2022 [N. Kotiswar Singh, CJ(Acting)]
Heard Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. R. Devi, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents.
Issue notice, returnable on 13.06.2022.
As the respondents are duly represented, no formal steps need to be taken in respect of them. However, the petitioner shall serve extra copies to the learned counsel for the respondents.
The grievance of the appellant is that his plea for deputation to another organisation in the same Ministry has been rejected on the ground of cadre deficiency. The said plea of the Department was upheld by the Ld. Single Judge.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is before us.
The stand taken by the appellant is that though it may be permissible to deny deputation on the aforesaid ground, yet, it has been held by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 324 Page No.# 3/3
of 2015, vide judgment and order dated 25.01.2016 where a similar question of law arose, that if there be any cadre deficiency, the authorities ought to take necessary steps to fill up the deficiency rather than making any employee suffer on account of such deficiency.
Further, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the concerned Officer under whom the appellant is presently working, i.e., Chief Engineer of Project Udayak has himself certified that the petitioner's deputation will not cause any disruption in the work in his office.
Be that as it may, all these aspects can be examined on the next returnable date. Till then, it is directed that 1(one) post of Private Secretary in DRDO may be kept reserved and that the application of the appellant be forwarded provisionally to the concerned authority so that necessary order can be passed on the next returnable date.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) Comparing Assistant
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!