Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ritu Suliya vs State Of M P on 14 October, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30116
1 WP-40721-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 14th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 40721 of 2025
RITU SULIYA
Versus
STATE OF M P AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Patwa learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Shrey Raj Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent/state.
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.10.2025 Annexure
P/8 by which the services of the petitioner have been directed to be
repatriated to his parent department.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was sent
on deputation by order dated 10.12.2024 Annexure P/4, alongwith other
engineers working in the department to the MP Rural Road Development
Authority after the selection. He argued that as per the policy of the State
Government Annexure P/9 dated 29.02.2008, the period of deputation is
ordinarily alteast of two years as per clause 3 of the said circular. He further
argued that his repatriation without completion of the said period and without
recording that his work was not satisfactory is illegal and arbitrary.
Learned counsel for the respondent/state supports the impugned order
and argued that the petitioner has not right to continue on deputation.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30116
2 WP-40721-2025
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this court finds that the
petitioner is an employee of Panchayat and Rural Development Department.
He was sent on deputation for two years. By the impugned order, the
decision has been taken to repatriate the service of the petitioner as well as
other persons working on deputation to the MP Rural Road Development
Authority.
The impugned order reflects a decision taken in the joint meeting at
the state level and also the MP Rural Development Authority to repatriate the
services of the Assistant Engineer/Sub-Engineer working on deputation.
Clause 5 of the circular dated 29.02.2008 provides that the period of
deputation can be terminated with the consultation of both departments.
Clause 5 further provides that if the services of an employee on deputation is
not satisfactory, recording reasons for the same can be recalled/repatriated.
This court does not find any substance in the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that even for termination of the period of
deputation prior to two years the government ought to have a record that his
performace is not satisfactory. It is apt to reproduce clause 5 of the circular
as under:-
"5. य द ितिनयु क अविध के भीतर ितिनयु समा क जाना हो तो
दोन वभाग का आपसी परामश से ितिनयु समा क जा सकेगी, परं तु
ितिनयु पर कायरत कमचार /अिधकार का काय संतोषजनक नह ं होने
पर सेवा लेने वाले वभाग ारा कारण का उ लेख करते हुए समय पूव सेवाय
वापस क जा सकगी।''
Upon perusal of the aforesaid clause, it is manifest that first para of the
order reads that the period of deputation can be terminated with the
consultation of both departments. The other part of the order deals with the
contingency where the performance of deputationist is not satisfactory, then
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30116
3 WP-40721-2025
his services can be repatriated, recording the reason for the same. In the
present case, the period of deputation has been terminated with the
consultation of both the department, as reflected in the impugned order.
It is settled law that an employee has no right to continue on
deputation. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment passed by
the Apex Court in the case of Kunal Nandu Vs. Union of India reported in
(2000) 5 SCC 362 and also the judgment passed in the case of Union of India
vs Narender Singh reported in (2005) 5 SCC 394.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any illegality in the
impugned order.
Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
