Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
MADHURESH PRASAD, SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA
Vukkem Rambabu – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MADHURESH PRASAD, J.
1. The writ petitioner was the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, (CAT for short) Kolkata Bench. His Original Application (OA) 29 of 2025 along with MA 70 of 2025 filed therein were dismissed by the CAT. The same is put to challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The brief narration of relevant facts is that the petitioner was a Senior Private Secretary in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Visakhapatnam. He applied for the post of Principal Private Secretary (PPS) on deputation at Armed Forces Tribunal, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as AFT), in response to a Circular issued by the Principal Registrar, AFT, New Delhi. Upon conduct of skill test and interview, appointment letter dated 17.02.2022 was issued in favour of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner was not being relieved by his parent department and only after order passed by the Jabalpur Bench of the CAT in OA No. 493 of 2022, on 19.01.2024, the petitioner could finally be relieved. He thus joined the office of AFT, Kolkata on 16.04.2024, i.e. more than two years after issuance of his appointment order.
4. Within six months from his joining, the petitioner was served with a t
A deputationist has no vested right to continue on deputation and can be repatriated by following due procedures as per the DOPT guidelines.
Service Law - Post of Presenting Officer – Sought to Direct respondent to continue petitioner on deputation till expiry of this remaining tenure as extended by the Competent Authority with all conseq....
Premature repatriation of a deputationist must comply with natural justice principles and procedural norms, and authority must be competent as per relevant statutes.
The main legal point established is that repatriation can be justified based on unsatisfactory performance and an employee's own undertaking, and the requirement of a three months' notice may not app....
The court ruled that repatriation during ongoing litigation violates interim orders, necessitating reinstatement.
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.
An employee on deputation does not have an indefeasible right to remain on deputation for the prescribed period and can be repatriated by the borrowing department at any time.
A deputationist lacks an indefeasible right to remain in a position, and authorities can recall employees based on service exigencies without breaching natural justice principles if no prejudice is c....
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
