Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
K. Z. Khan – Appellant
Versus
National Commission For Women & Ors. – Respondents
LPA 66 of 2023 and CM APPL. 4306 of 2023
Decided On : 09-02-2023
Deputation - Repatriation - Letters Patent Act - [Deputation, Repatriation, Letters Patent Act]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was appointed on deputation as Private Secretary to the Chairperson of National Commission for Women. He was repatriated before completion of the two-year deputation period and filed a writ petition challenging the repatriation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's performance was unsatisfactory, and he had given an undertaking allowing for immediate repatriation in case of unsatisfactory performance. The court also noted that the appellant did not join his parent organization after repatriation.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the repatriation, the requirement of a three months' notice, and the payment of gratuity for the held-up period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the repatriation was justified due to the unsatisfactory performance and the appellant's own undertaking. It also found that the requirement of a three months' notice did not apply in this case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and declined to interfere with the repatriation order.
JUDGMENT
Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J.
1. The present LPA has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Act arising out of an order dated 24.01.2022 passed in W.P.(C.) No. 2622/2022 titled K. Z. Khan VS. National Commission For Women And Ors.
2. The facts of the case reveal that the Appellant was appointed on the post of Junior Stenographer-Cum-Clerk-Cum-Typist in the National Projects Construction Corporation Limited (Respondent No. 5 herein) on 03.01.1990, and while serving the Corporation he was posted on deputation by an order dated 24.04.2020 for a period of two years as Private Secretary to the Chairperson of National Commission for Women (Respondent No.1 herein).
3. The Appellant reported on duty as Private Secretary with effect from 24.04.2020 for a period of two years.
4. The facts of the case further reveal that the Appellant on 05.11.2020 got infected with COVID-19, and, as stated by him, he was discharging his duty online. He was on sick leave from 05.11.2020 to 30.11.2020.
5. The Appellant while he was working on deputation was promoted by his Parent Organization by an order dated 29.09.2021 from the Post of Senior Assistant Grade-1 (PA) to the Post of Assistant Manager (HR) with effect from 01.10.2021.
6. The Appellant again got infected, as stated by him, with COVID-19 infection, and he was ill with effect from 19.02.2022 to 31.01.2022. He submitted an application on 20.01.2022, and informed the National Commission for Women that COVID Report dated 20.02.2022 is positive and finally got a negative report on 31.01.2022.
7. The Appellant submitted a formal leave application to the Authorities of National Commission for Women for sanctioning special casual leave on 02.02.2022. However, by an order dated 02.02.2022, he was repatriated by the National Commission for Women.
8. The Appellant being aggrieved by his repatriation before completion of two years period, preferred a writ petition before this Court i.e. W.P.(C.) No. 2622/2022 and raised various grounds including a ground that he should have been given three months' mandatory notice, and should have been informed valid reasons for repatriation.
9. The Appellant also submitted a representation to his Parent Organization in respect of his repatriation, which was prior to completion of two years period.
10. The Appellant kept on representing the matter raising various grounds and grievances before the Authorities.
11. Finally, the Learned Single Judge vide judgement dated 21.04.2022 dismissed the Petition filed by the Appellant.
12. The order dated 21.04.2022 passed by this Court dismissing the writ petition reads as under:
"1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
"It is therefore, in view of the fact and circumstances mentioned above, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
i. Issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari whereby quashing the Office Order No. 12/2021-2022/Establishment dated 02.02.2022 vide which the petitioner has been repatriated and relieved from deputation without adhering the DoPT Norms, and/or
ii. issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus whereby directing Direct Respondent to immediately restore the services of the petitioner from the date of his reliving with entire benefits as per the guidelines of DoPT for premature repatriation of employees pertaining to deputations and to issue three months' notice prior to premature repatriation of any employee in future. And /or
iii. issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus whereby directing the respondents to regularize all Leaves as per COVID Norms as special leave as per directives of Ministry of Health fixed for COVID Victim in services. And/or
iv. Direct the respondents to pay Cost of litigation as well compensation to the petitioner for causing grave mental agony arises out of noncompliance of the slated guidelines by the Competent Authority of NCW which shows the incompetency in iss
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....
A deputationist has no vested right to continue on deputation and can be repatriated by following due procedures as per the DOPT guidelines.
Premature repatriation of a deputationist must comply with natural justice principles and procedural norms, and authority must be competent as per relevant statutes.
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....
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....
The court upheld the constitutionality of the seven-year limit on spousal deputation, emphasizing equitable opportunity distribution and administrative discretion in policy formulation.
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) fo....
The court emphasized the importance of considering the petitioner's absence period and performance in the APAR, and directed the authorities to comply with the instructions and decide on the pending ....
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
