SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Chh) 77

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAJANI DUBEY, J.
Chandra Shekhar Belchandan, S/o. Late Shri K.S. Belchandan - Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Housing and Environment, Raipur, Chhattisgarh & Ors. - Respondents
WPS No. 5439 of 2017
Decided On : 23-01-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sandeep Jha along with Ms. Gunjan Tiwari.
For the Respondents: Ms. Meena Shastri, Addl. A.G., Mr. Amrito Das, Ms. Annapurna Tiwari.

A government employee on deputation does not have an absolute right to choose when to move to another department, and the refusal of the parent department to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for absorption is valid.

Headnote:

Deputation - Government Employee - [Border Roads Development Board Act, 2007, Section 4(1); Deputation Policy, 2016] - The court analyzed the petitioner's deputation period, the conditions for absorption, and the refusal of the parent department to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for absorption. The court found that the petitioner failed to fulfill the condition of producing a resignation or voluntary retirement certificate from the parent department, and the parent department rejected the request for absorption. The court held that the petitioner did not have an absolute right to choose when to move to another department and dismissed the petition.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a government employee, was on deputation to various departments. The petitioner sought absorption in the Chhattisgarh Housing Board, but the parent department refused to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for absorption.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner failed to fulfill the condition of producing a resignation or voluntary retirement certificate from the parent department, and the parent department rejected the request for absorption. The court held that the petitioner did not have an absolute right to choose when to move to another department and dismissed the petition.

Issues: The main issue was the refusal of the parent department to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the petitioner's absorption in the Chhattisgarh Housing Board.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner did not have an absolute right to choose when to move to another department and that the parent department's refusal to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for absorption was valid.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner did not fulfill the conditions for absorption and that the parent department's refusal to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) was valid.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner filed the instant petition challenging the order dated 27.09.2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.1 thereby relieving the petitioner from respondent Chhattisgarh Housing Board in the garb of repatriating him after completion of deputation period to join in the respondent No.5/Border Roads Development Boards. The petitioner is also challenging the order dated 03.10.2017 (Annexure P/2) issued by respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner was directed to hand over the charge to the post of Executive Engineer.

2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was selected and appointed vide order dated 22-11-2002 (Annexure P/3) on the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) under the Border Roads Development Board (in short, BRDB), Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. Petitioner was serving as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) in BRDB with sincerity and honesty and to satisfaction of the authorities. In the mean while, respondent no. 1 created respondent no. 2 Naya Raipur Development Authority, where several posts of Executive Engineer (Civil) were vacant. Pursuant to the said vacant post, the petitioner being residence of Chhattisgarh, submitted his application. The application of the petitioner was duly considered and on 25-04-2011 (Annexure P/4), respondent no. 2 wrote a letter to respondent no. 4 requesting to issue No Objection Certificate of the petitioner so that his services may be taken on deputation. Further on 30-04-2011 (Annexure P/5) respondent no. 3 also wrote a letter to respondent no. 1 thereby submitting that the respondent no. 3 has no objection if the services of the petitioner were taken on deputation.

3. Respondent no. 4 issued an order on 25-09-2012 (Annexure P/6) thereby approving the deputation of the petitioner to render his services to respondent no. 1 on the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) for a period of 3 years. Accordingly, the petitioner was relieved on 25-09-2012 with an observation that no disciplinary/vigilance case was pending or contemplated against the petitioner. Respondent no. 1 thereafter passed an order on 29-10-2012 (Annexure P/8) thereby posting the petitioner as Executive Engineer (Civil) at Naya Raipur Development Authority. The services of the petitioner were further transferred on 20-01-2014 (Annexure P/9) where the petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer (Civil) in the respondent no. 3/ Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Raipur. Petitioner performed his duty with dedication and sincerity and also to the satisfaction of the authorities. However, respondent no. 1 passed an order on 21-01-2015 (Annexure P/10) thereby observing that the petitioner was sent on deputation for a period of 3 years therefore, his services would be repatriated to his parent department with effect from 04-11-2015 after culmination of deputation period. However, the aforesaid order was cancelled vide order dated 03-09-2015 (Anneexure P/11) as the services of the petitioner are required in the respondent no. 3. Respondent no. 1 wrote a letter to respondent no. 5 on 04-09-2015 (Annexure P/12) requesting to extend the deputation period of the petitioner for further period of 2 years with effect from 04-11-2015 as the service of the petitioner is required to the respondent no. 1. It appears that respondent no. 5 refused to extend the deputation period of the petitioner vide communication dated 22-09-2015 against which the respondent no. 1 further wrote a letter on 20-10-2015 (Annexure P/13) thereby requesting to reconsider the case of the petitioner for extension of his deputation period. Petitioner was not made known about the order dated 22-09-2015 by any of the respondents.

4. In the meanwhile, respondent no. 3 wrote a letter to respondent no. 1 thereby seeking approval to absorb the services of the petitioner on the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) in respondent no. 3 vide communication dated 09-05-2016 which was duly approved by respondent

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        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

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top