Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
MADHURESH PRASAD, SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA
Vukkem Rambabu – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's application history and initial facts of repatriation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. petitioner's claim regarding grounds for repatriation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's analysis of petitioner’s conduct and procedural adherence. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. legal principles governing the status of deputation and repatriation. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. final judgment and non-interference by higher court. (Para 23 , 24) |
| 6. dismissal of writ petition without costs. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
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, N
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.
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
