CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Rishabh Kumar Jain vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 17 July 2013 · Citation: (2013) 07 MP CK 0332

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sujoy Paul, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition 4789 of 2013
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 337 words

Sujoy Paul, J.—Heard. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2012, whereby the respondents have repatriated the petitioner and directed him to submit his joining before the parent department. Annexure P-2 contains similar direction and is issued in obedience of the order, Annexure P-1. It is challenged on the ground that it is not mentioned in the order as to where the petitioner has to join and, therefore, it will create inconvenience and hardship to the petitioner. In addition, it is submitted that the petitioner''s performance was good and there is no occasion for the respondents to repatriate the petitioner.

2.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid aspect.

3.

The deputation order dated 20.7.2007 does not provide any term/tenure of deputation. The petitioner is repatriated to his parent department. The question is whether petitioner has any right to continue with the borrowing department or has a right to seek absorption. This point is no more res integra and decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Kunal Nanda Vs. Union of India and Another, The Apex Court opined 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.

4.

Thus, I find no flaw in the order of repatriation of the petitioner. No legal, vested or constitutional right of the petitioner is infringed. Even if the petitioner''s services were satisfactory for the sake of argument in borrowing department, it does not give any right to the petitioner to continue on deputation. The petitioner already worked for more than five years on deputation.

5.

I find no substance in the argument that the petitioner''s posting order has not been shown in Annexures P/1 and P/2. In the opinion of this Court, the posting order would be issued by the parent department when the petitioner will submit his joining before it. I find no reason to entertain this petition. Petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.