Maharaj Singh Yadav vs State of MP

Appellant/writ petitioner is posted as an Assistant Engineer in MANREGA in Rahatgarh, District Sagar. It is stated that he originally belongs to the Water Resource Department and was sent on deputation to MANREGA. While he was being repatriated back to his parent department vide orders dated 29.11.2013, 26.2.2014 and 29.3.2014, he challenged the same in the writ petition. The challenge having failed, this appeal under section 2(1) of the MP Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed.

It is the case of the appellant that he was initially appointed in the Water Resources Department on 21.1.1981, as a Sub Engineer. Thereafter, he was sent on deputation vide order dated 13.6.2008 to the office of National Guarantee Scheme in the Department of Panchayat and Rural Development. It is seen that he is now being repatriated back to his parent department and when challenge to the repatriation failed in the writ court, this appeal has been filed.

Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that appellant was appointed on deputation in MANREGA, based on certain request sent for appointment in MANREGA; and, as the appellant is appointed by deputation in the said establishment, he cannot be repatriated back treating him to be on deputation.

Inviting our attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court, in the case of Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, , Shri Vipin Yadav argued that appointment on deputation and transfer on deputation are two different aspects in service jurisprudence and even if transfer on deputation is made on an equivalent post, it does not give any right to the deputationist to continue on the deputed post, but in the case of appointment of deputation to a higher post, this principle is not applicable.

Inviting our attention to an order � Annexure I/1, filed alongwith I.A. No. 9940/2014, it was argued by learned counsel that the appellant is a person who has been appointed on deputation, therefore, he cannot be repatriated.

Shri K.S. Wadhwa, learned Additional Advocate General, refuted the aforesaid and emphasized that appellant/writ petitioner is not appointed on deputation, as contended by him. He is only sent on deputation, therefore, the principle laid down in the case of Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel (supra) will not apply. Learned Additional Advocate General invites our attention to Annexure I/1 and points out that the MP State Rozgar Guarantee Parishad issued a Circular to all Collectors and District Office with regard to calling on deputation or contract basis employees working in various departments for their posting as Assistant Engineer in MANREGA. Appellant was also posted on deputation in pursuance to this order and if the terms and conditions of deputation as are indicated in Annexure I/2 are perused, it is clear that it is not a case of appointment on deputation, but it is only a case of sending a person on deputation or transfer by the State Government.

We have taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case and we are not in a position to hold that the appellant�s so called deputation is an appointment on a higher post on deputation. In the case of Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel (supra), it was found that it was a recruitment made to a cadre post by deputation of an employee and the appointment was on a higher post.

In the present case, no such eventuality is demonstrated before us. On the contrary Annexure I/1 filed by the appellant is only a Circular issued by the MP State Rozgar Guarantee Parishad, calling for appointment as Assistant Engineer on deputation or contract basis. Thereafter, the appointment order of the appellant filed as Annexure I/2 dated 27.4.2008 indicates that he has been selected for posting on deputation and the terms and conditions of appointment clearly indicates that the deputation is on such terms and conditions as has been fixed by the General Administration Department in the Government of MP. The person on deputation before joining will have to obtain proper relieving and NOC from his parent department and he will only receive such pay and allowances as is stipulated in the Circular issued by the Finance Department and which he was receiving in his parent department.

From the aforesaid, it is clear that appellant was sent on deputation to the department and he is now being repatriated back to his parent department on various administrative considerations and it is not a case where the appellant is appointed by way of a recruitment process on deputation as was done in the case of Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel (supra).

That apart, if the original order sending the appellant/petitioner on deputation to National Guarantee Scheme vide Annexure P/1 dated 13.6.2008 (filed alongwith the Writ Petition) is taken note of, it would be seen that appellant/petitioner was working as a Sub Engineer in the Water Resource Department; his services are being sent on deputation to the National Guarantee Scheme for a period of three years or until further orders. This order � Annexure P/1 and the order of repatriation � Annexure P/2 clearly shows that the appellant�s case was a normal case of deputation from one department to another and it is not a case where the appellant is appointed or recruited in a particular office by way of recruitment or appointment on deputation.

That being so, the learned writ Court has not committed any error in dismissing the writ petition by holding that the appellant is only on deputation, he does not have any right to continue on the deputed post and can be repatriated back to his parent department even before his tenure is over.

Keeping in view the aforesaid, we find no ground to interfere into the matter.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.