Manoj Sharma vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—Petitioner has challenged the order dated 14/06/2013, whereby he has been repatriated to his parent department (District Co-operative and Rural Development Bank) from the borrowing department (M.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board). Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was taken on deputation and rendered his services with the borrowing department with utmost honesty and sincerity. No objection certificate dated 06.06.2013 Annexure (P/8) was issued whereby the parent department expressed its no objection if the petitioner continues in deputation and is even absorbed. By placing reliance on the communication dated 16.12.2011 (page 37), it is contended that the borrowing department requested the parent department to show their approval/disapproval for extension of deputation period. In turn, by order dated 26.12.2011 (page 38) the parent department expressed its willingness for extension of deputation period by five years. Thereafter, by communication dated 26.05.2012 the borrowing department decided to alternatively extend the deputation period and decided to place the case of petitioner''s deputation before the Review Committee.

The bone of contention is that after this date (26.05.2012), no Review Committee took place and therefore, the petitioner''s repatriation is impermissible.

Shri S.P. Jain, learned counsel for the Board, supported the order and relied on the proceedings of the Review Committee dated 20.01.2012. By taking this Court to various clauses of the decision, Shri Jain contended that it was already decided that soon after completion of four years of deputation period, the employees will be repatriated back to the parent department. He submits that the Managing Director was authorised to issue appropriate orders in compliance of the said decision. The decision was taken by the Full Board and five members including the concerned Minister attended the meeting. He submits that petitioner has no legal right to continue on deputation.

No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.

The contention of the petitioner is based on approval of the parent department for extension of deputation period. The main contention is based on the document dated 26.05.2012, whereby it is decided to alternatively extend the deputation period and place the petitioner''s case before the next Review Committee. The question is whether this document creates any legal right in favour of the petitioner. In other words, whether this document in absence of any such Review Committee after 26.05.2012, creates any right in favour of the petitioner and whether on the strength of that the impugned order Annexure (P/1) can be said to be bad in law.

In the opinion of this Court, this question is no more res integra. The employee has no right to remain on deputation. Merely because the parent department has given consent for extension of deputation, it did not create any enforceable legal right in favour of the petitioner. The Apex Court in Kunal Nanda Vs. Union of India and Another, held as under:-

A deputationist can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department, at the instance of either borrowing department or parent department.

This Court also has taken the same view in Kamlesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and Others, . The relevant paragraph reads as under:-

Deputation is possible only with the consent and voluntary decision of the deputationist, lending authority in the parent Department and the borrowing authority in the borrowing Department. The basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the person concerned can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in substantive post therein at the instance of either of departments and there is no vested right in such a person to continue for long on deputation or get absorbed in the Department to which he had gone on deputation.

On the basis of aforesaid analysis, in my opinion, the petitioner was unable to show that his legal, vested, constitutional or statutory right is infringed. Admittedly "lien" of the petitioner is with the parent department and therefore, petitioner can enjoy the said title there and has no right to continue on deputation. The document dated 26.5.2012 neither can prevail over Full Board decision nor creates any legal right. Petition sans substance and is hereby dismissed.