Legitimate expectation for absorption in CBI based on NOC from the parent department and commendable service in CBI justified the court's decision to set aside the Tribunal's order and direct the petitioner's absorption in CBI.

JUDGMENT :

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

The challenge in this writ petition by the petitioner is to the order dated August 11, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (‘Tribunal’, in short) in Original Application No. 1004/2006 (‘OA’, in short) whereby, the Tribunal has dismissed the OA filed by the petitioner herein.

2. The challenge in the OA, by the petitioner, was to the order dated January 20, 2006, whereby his request for absorption as Lower Division Clerk (‘LDC’, in short) in Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’, in short) was rejected. In the said OA, the petitioner had sought a direction to the respondents to consider his appointment as LDC in CBI on permanent absorption basis and payment of deputation allowance till the date he continues to be on deputation in CBI.

3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as LDC in General Reserve Engineering Force (‘GREF’, in short)/Border Roads Organization, and was selected on deputation basis in CBI, as LDC vide communication dated September 13, 2002. He was initially posted in Chennai. On October 29, 2004, the petitioner had applied for permanent absorption in CBI. Subsequently, on May 3, 2005, the petitioner was transferred to Delhi.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that, on request, the CBI vide its letter dated March 1, 2005, to GREF, had sought NOC for the petitioner's permanent absorption in CBI. Vide letter dated March 24, 2005, GRPF/parent department issued NOC for his absorption. It appears that on January 1, 2006, while the petitioner was on deputation, a decision was taken by the CBI, not to absorb deputationist LDC/SCS in CBI. Thereafter, vide letter dated March 9, 2006, the GREF did not accede to the request of CBI for further extension of the petitioner's deputation in CBI. Accordingly, the Head Office of the CBI vide Fax dated February 23, 2006 directed SP, CBI, AC-II to repatriate the petitioner to his parent department by March 26, 2006. It was in this background, the petitioner had approached the Tribunal.

5. The case of the CBI before the Tribunal was that the petitioner cannot claim his absorption in CBI as a matter of right, as the petitioner's parent department had been pressing for the immediate repatriation of the petitioner as it had not granted NOC for further extension, on deputation, in CBI.

6. It was also their case that the absorption has to be accorded in public interest. It was their case that, neither the parent department of the petitioner had issued NOC nor has the Competent Authority in CBI acceded to his request for absorption, hence the petitioner has no claim. The Tribunal has in paragraphs 6 and 7, held as under:

“6. It is undisputed that deputation is not a right and no employee can claim either deputation nor absorption as a matter of right. It is essential that both lending and borrowing departments had to agree for an employee to be accepted on deputation. It is settled law that the deputationist can be reverted to his parent cadre at any, time and he has no right to be absorbed on the deputation post (Rati Lal B. Soni v. State of Gujarat. 1990 Supp SCC 243 : AIR 1990 SC 1132). It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunal Nanda v. Union of India ((2000) 5 SCC 362 : JT (2000) 6 SC 574) that

“The basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the person concerned can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in his substantive position therein at the instance-of either of the departments and there is no vested right in such a person to continue for long on deputation or get absorbed in the department to which he had gone on deputation.”

It is very clear from the material on record that the request of the applicant for extension of deputation beyond 4th year was not acceded to by the parent organisation, namely GREF/Boarder Roads Organisation in public interest. It is amply clear form letter dated 9.3.2006 (Annexure R-2) from Dte. General Boar