Rampal Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri A.S. Rai for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents.

The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of repatriation dated 4.5.2008 whereby from Local Intelligence Unit (in short "LIU") he has been repatriated to Civil Polices. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was initially appointed in Civil Police in the year 1977, but thereafter he was posted in LIU in the year 1993 and since then he is continuously working thereat till the impugned order was passed. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the impugned order is arbitrary and unreasonable inasmuch for transfer of Petitioner to his substantive cadre, no reason has been assigned.

The submission is thoroughly misconceived. The concept of transfer and deputation has been explained by the Apex Court in Prasar Bharti and Others Vs. Amarjeet Singh and Others, and it has been held that a person sent in a cadre outside his substantive cadre has no right to continue in foreign cadre and can be repatriated to his parent cadre at any point of time without assigning any reason. Further, the authorities cannot be required to assign any reason, whatsoever, in an order of transfer and such power of transfer cannot be fettered by requiring them to record reason. Which employee should be posted where is absolutely within the domain of the authority concerned and unless it is shown that a order of transfer/repatriation is contrary to the statutory rules or is otherwise mala fide or has been passed by the incompetent authority, only then the Court may interfere and not otherwise. (See: State of U.P. and Others Vs. Ashok Kumar Saxena and Another Etc., Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and Others,

The right of an employee to continue on deputation has been considered in a catena of cases earlier also. In Kunal Nanda Vs. Union of India and Another, the Apex Court held as under:

... 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 his substantive position therein at the instance of either of the Departments, and there is no vested right in such a person to continue for long on deputation or to get absorpted Department to which he had gone on deputation.... (para 6)

5 This Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and Ors., writ petition No. 52527 of 2005 decided on 3rd August 2005, has held as under:

... It is well settled that a deputationist has no right to remain on deputation and he can be sent back to his Parent Department at any time....

In the case of Devi Kumar v. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad 2004 (3) UPLBC 2318 this Court observed as under:

... The period of deputation originally fixed can be cut short, if considering necessary, a deputationist has no right to continue in the deputation post....

A Division Bench of this Court in the Gauri Shanker v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2005 (1) AWL 426 held as under.

...A deputationist has no right to remain on deputation and he can be sent back to his Parent Department at any time....

The same view has been followed by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Seema Kundra v. State of U.P. 2003(1) AWL 520

9 Sri Rai, however, submits that while posted in LIU, the Petitioner was entitled for extra payment, i.e., special pay of about Rs. 200/- and the impugned transfer order would deprive him from payment thereof, and, therefore, the same is punitive in nature.

The submission is thoroughly misconceived. The special pay was not part of the pay to which the Petitioner was entitled, but the same is attached to a particular post/office and as and when any person is posted on that post, he receives the same. An order of transfer, which may affect such special pay attached to a particular place or post does not entitle a person to continue on the post for the purpose of getting payment of such special pay and it cannot be treated to be a loss of emoluments making the order of transfer/repatriation illegal.

I, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition.

Dismissed.