Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SHAKDHER, NAJMI WAZIRI
Keshav Ram – Appellant
Versus
East Central Railway – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against repatriation order. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. tribunal's decision upheld by court. (Para 4) |
| 3. petitioner's personal circumstances considered. (Para 5) |
| 4. consideration for petitioner's location. (Para 6) |
| 5. writ petition disposed with directions. (Para 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT :
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]
CM APPL. 21230/2021
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 6733/2021 & CM APPL. 21231/2021
2. This is a writ petition directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short `the Tribunal') dated 30.03.2021.
2.1. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner had assailed the letter of repatriation dated 12.11.2020 (See: Annexure P-5).
2.2. To put it pithily, the petitioner had approached the Tribunal with the grievance that although respondent no. 1, i.e., the parent department had no objection to him being absorbed by the borrowing department, i.e., respondent no. 2, respondent no. 2 had issued the impugned letter of repatriation dated 12.11.2020.
3. The petitioner, in support of his plea also drew attention to the fact that other persons who had been sent on deputati
An employee on deputation is to be repatriated if the borrowing department opts not to absorb them, but personal circumstances must be considered in determining their subsequent posting.
A deputationist has no vested right to continue on deputation and can be repatriated by following due procedures as per the DOPT guidelines.
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....
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.
The court ruled that repatriation during ongoing litigation violates interim orders, necessitating reinstatement.
The court emphasized the need for proper justification in repatriation requests and clarified that speculative fears of disciplinary actions must be addressed through appropriate legal processes.
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 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
