Back
SANJIV KHANNA, SANJAY KUMAR
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Phani Bhusan Kundu – Respondent
ORDER :
Leave granted.
2. Despite service, none has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1, Phani Bhusan Kundu. Accordingly, he is set ex parte.
3. Respondent No. 1, Phani Bhusan Kundu, was a permanent employee of the State of West Bengal, who had joined service in the year 1968. He was working as the Director of Veterinary Services under the Government of West Bengal in 1991. He applied for deputation to the post of Animal Husbandry Commissioner, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. By the notification published by the Union Public Service Commission, he was appointed/posted on deputation as the Animal Husbandry Commissioner in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying with effect from 24.06.1991. The letter appointing him to the said post clearly stated that the appointment was by transfer on deputation basis for a period up to 31.08.1992 or till further orders, whichever is earlier.
4. Respondent No. 1, Phani Bhusan Kundu, retired from the service of the State of West Bengal with effect from the afternoon of 30.09.1992. Due to an error, the appellant, Union of India, did not repatriate respondent no. 1, Phani Bhusan Kundu, to his parent department in the Sta
Deputation does not confer permanent employment rights; employees revert to their parent department after the deputation period, maintaining their lien.
Pension calculations for deputationists must exclude deputation allowances, relying solely on average emoluments from the parent bank as per applicable regulations.
Point of Law : A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300 A of the Constitution.
Appointments on deputation do not confer a right to continue beyond the specified term, and the distinction between transfer and appointment on deputation is significant.
In case of 'appointment on deputation', employer cannot claim employee has no right to continue till completion of deputation - Director's decision not to extend deputation must be based on evaluatio....
Deputationists do not have an indefeasible right to remain in the borrowing department permanently; repatriation to the parent department is justified after five years of service on deputation.
The court upheld that without clear statutory provisions allowing absorption, deputationists retain no right to permanent positions, reaffirming previous rulings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
