Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Peeyush Chander Pandaya vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:25959) on 27 May, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:25959]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5743/2025

Peeyush Chander Pandaya S/o Sh. Ramesh Chander Pandaya,
Aged About 51 Years, R/o Shastri Colony, Partapur, District
Banswara.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.        State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary,                         Education
          Department, Secretariate, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.        Director, Minority Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3.        Radhakrishna Sankul, Madarsa Board Bhawan, Jln Marg,
          Jaipur.
4.        District Minority Welfare Officer, Banswara.
5.        Nanak    Ram    Yadav, Senior  Teacher   (Sanskrit),
          Government Senior Secondary School, Dodiyard, Nawa
          Khera, Banswara.
                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. C.S. Kotwani.
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Shailendra Kumar for
                                  Mr. Ritu Raj Singh Bhati, GC.


              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

27/05/2025

1. The present petition has been filed aggrieved of order dated

15.01.2025 (Annexure-3) whereby the petitioner has been

repatriated back to his parent Department. Order dated

15.01.2025 was assailed by the petitioner before the Rajasthan

Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur whereby the appeal

(Appeal No.1099/2025) stood rejected vide order dated

19.02.2025 (Annexure-10). The said order dated 19.02.2025 is

also under challenge in the present petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

who was sent on deputation with the Minority Welfare Department

has been repatriated back to his parent Department, i.e., the

[2025:RJ-JD:25959] (2 of 5) [CW-5743/2025]

Education Department, in pursuance to request/communication

dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure-6) made by the parent Department.

Counsel submits that vide communication dated 06.08.2024,

the parent Department had requested for repatriation of more

than a hundred employees deputed with different Departments

but then, only two of the employees have been repatriated back

which is discriminatory and arbitrary.

3. Per contra counsel for the respondents submits that as per

Clause 7 of the Government of Rajasthan's Decision related to

Rule 144-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Rules of 1951'), the maximum period for which

a Government servant can be retained on deputation is four years

and the same is extendable only for a period of one year. Herein,

the petitioner is on deputation since the year 2011 and hence, the

order impugned is totally in consonance with law.

4. Heard the counsels and perused the record.

5. Decision/Clause No.7 of the Government of Rajasthan's

Decision pertaining to Rule 144-A of the Rules of 1951 provides as

under:

"7. Duration of Deputation: The maximum period for which a Government servant may remain on deputation shall in no case exceed four year's, provided that in cases where it is, considered absolutely necessary in public interest and in special circumstances, to extend the period of deputation on foreign service beyond the maximum period of four years, the Administrative Department shall be competent to extent the period of deputation upto one year more i.e. upto 5 years, in all without any, prior reference to the Finance Department. But for the period exceeding fifth years, prior permission of Finance Department for extension in deputation period would be necessary and that:--

[2025:RJ-JD:25959] (3 of 5) [CW-5743/2025]

(a) No deputation allowance or deputation pay shall be payable for the extended period beyond four years;

(b) No proposal for extension in the period of deputation beyond five years shall be considered even without deputation allowance/deputation pay, if the proposal for extension in the existing term of deputation is not moved at least two months before the expiry of the term of deputation giving full justification and

(c) If no request is received within the time limit prescribed; in (b) above the competent authority should issue the posting orders at least 30 days before the expiry of the period of deputation. The Government servant on deputation will seek permission 30 days before the expiry of period of deputation from the lending authority for reporting back to the parent department and shall act according to the directions received."

6. From a bare perusal of the above decision, it is clear that the

order impugned is in consonance with the same as admittedly, the

petitioner is on deputation with the Minority Welfare Department

since the year 2011. Further, it is on the request of the parent

Department that he has been repatriated back to the parent

Department.

7. In the specific opinion of this Court, the borrowing

Department has no authority not to accede to the request of the

parent Department. As and when the parent Department requests

for repatriation of the employees sent on deputation to some

other Department, the borrowing Department is under an

obligation to accede to the same and repatriate back the employee

concerned.

8. As is the settled position of law, an employee cannot claim to

remain on deputation during his/her complete service tenure as a

matter of right. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kunal

Nanda vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors; (2000) 5 SCC 362,

[2025:RJ-JD:25959] (4 of 5) [CW-5743/2025]

the basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the person

concerned can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent

cadre to serve in his substantive position at the instance of either

of the Departments and there is no vested right in such a person

to continue for long or to get absorbed in the Department to which

he is deputed.

9. Further, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of

Gurinder Pal Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.;

Civil Writ Petition No.7545 of 2004 (decided on 30.09.2004)

while relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Ratilal B. Soni Vs. State of Gujarat; AIR 1990 SC

1132 observed and held as under:

"12. In service jurisprudence, "deputation" is described as an assignment of an employee of one department or cadre to another department or cadre. The necessity for sending on deputation arises in "public interest" to meet the exigencies of "public service". The concept of deputation is based upon consent and voluntary decision of the employer to lend the services of his employee, corresponding acceptance of such service by the borrowing employer and the consent of the employee to go on deputation. A deputation subsists so long as the parties to this tripartite arrangement do not abrogate it. However, if any one of the parties repudiate the agreement, the other two have no legally enforcible right to insist upon continuance of the deputation. Even in the cases where deputationists continue for a pretty long period and options for their "absorption" in the borrowing department were taken, yet their repatriation to the parent department was upheld by the Apex Court in Ratilal B. Soni v. State of Gujarat; AIR 1990 SC 1132 after holding that "the appellants being on deputation, they could be repatriated to their parent cadre at any time and they do not get any right to be absorbed on the deputation post.

13."Deputation" per se being a contractually made ad hoc arrangement, seldom confers any right upon a deputationist, either for completion of the term of deputation or regularisation of such stop-gap arrangement.

[2025:RJ-JD:25959] (5 of 5) [CW-5743/2025]

The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the College in this regard squarely answer the controversy."

10. Further, the aforementioned Government decision specifically

clarifies that the period of deputation cannot exceed five years, by

all means. The order impugned therefore, does not deserve any

interference. The present writ petition is hence dismissed. But

before parting, this Court finds it essential to observe that the

action of the respondent-Department in not repatriating back all

the other employees is clearly discriminatory and dehors the

specific provisions of law.

11. Counsel for the respondents could not refute the fact that

out of the complete list of employees as requested by the parent

Department, only two of them have been repatriated back. Why

the others have not been repatriated back is a matter of serious