Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Farjand Ali, J.
Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Ram Chandra - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Affairs Department and ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10485/2024
Decided On : 09-12-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition challenging the order of repatriation from deputation - The petitioner was appointed as Inspector, Legal Metrology on deputation and sought reinstatement after being relieved - The court found the repatriation order to be in contempt of previous interim orders and judgments, thus quashing the relieving order and directing reinstatement. (Paras 6.1, 6.2, 7.1)
(B) Administrative Exigency - The court observed that the respondents failed to establish any administrative exigency justifying the repatriation, especially in light of the ongoing litigation and interim orders. (Paras 5.8, 6.3)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer and later on deputation as Inspector, Legal Metrology. He was repatriated despite ongoing litigation and interim orders preventing such action.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the repatriation was a violation of the interim orders and thus quashed the orders of repatriation.
Issues: The main issues were whether the repatriation was justified given the ongoing litigation and interim orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the repatriation was a contemptuous act as it violated the interim orders and the principles established in previous judgments.
Result: Writ petition allowed, repatriation orders quashed, and petitioner reinstated on deputation.
JUDGMENT :
Farjand Ali, J.
1. Grievance & Prayer :-
1.1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner ventilating his grief over his relieving from services rendered by him on deputation by the respondent - Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur vide order dated 31.05.2024 (Annexure-19) in compliance of the order dated 14.02.2024 (Annexure-14) passed by the Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., [For brevity hereinafter to be referred as ‘the RRVUNL’.] by which his deputation was cancelled.
1.2. The petitioner has sought benevolence of this Court to quash and set aside the said relieving order as well as to reinstate him on deputation.
2. Facts of the case :-
2.1. Bereft of elaborate details, the brief facts necessary for disposal of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer in RRVUNL on 28.01.2015; however, later on, following the advertisement dated 20.11.2017 (Annexure-1) issued by the respondent - Department of Consumer Affairs, he applied for and, after meeting the eligibility criteria and completing the due selection process, he was appointed on the post of Inspector, Legal Metrology on deputation vide order dated 26.12.2017 (Annexure-2). In compliance thereof, the petitioner joined his duties and successfully completed requisite training course as directed to him through various orders.
2.2. Surprisingly, vide order dated 29.05.2020 (Annexure-7), the petitioner was repatriated to his parent department i.e. RRVUNL, therefore, relieved from duties and replaced by one Mahipal Singh. The said order was challenged by the petitioner through S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4537/2020[Titled as ‘Suresh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.’], wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.08.2020 (Annexure-8) while admitting a batch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4605/2020 [Titled as ‘Ramchandra Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.’.] , including the writ petition of petitioner, stayed the effect and operation of the orders of repatriation of all the petitioners therein, including the repatration order of the petitioner dated 29.05.2020 (Annexure-7), and also directed that all the petitioners therein shall not be repatriated to their parent departments.
2.3. Being aggrieved by the aforementioned interim order dated 14.08.2020 (Annexure-8), the State Government as well as the private respondents/counterparts of the petitioners of those writ petitions, preferred separate special appeal writs led by D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.427/2020 [Titled as ‘Bhop Raj Jatav & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.’.] before the Division Bench of this Court, who vide judgment dated 26.05.2021 (Annexure-11) disposed of all those appeals granting liberty to all the parties to contest all the issues on merits before the learned Single Judge in the above mentioned pending writ petitions. The Division Bench also clarified the Para 28 of the order dated 14.08.2020 (Annexure-8) while holding that the petitioners of those writ petitions, including the present petitioner too, will not be repatriated to their parent department and the appointment of the private respondents of those writ petitions will remain subject to the final outcome of the respective those rit petitions as the issue involved therein are still pending consideration and adjudication.
2.4. The parent department of the petitioner i.e. RRVUNL passed an order dated 14.02.2024 (Annexure-14) cancelling the deputation of the petitioner with intimation to the concern departments. Upon receiving this information, the respondent - Department of Consumer Affairs vide communication dated 21.02.2024 (Annexure-15) expressed its inability to relieve the employees working as Inspector, Legal Metrology due to unavailability of sufficient number of trained/experienced officers as the enactment of service rules as well as regular appointm
The court ruled that repatriation during ongoing litigation violates interim orders, necessitating reinstatement.
A deputationist has no vested right to continue on deputation and can be repatriated by following due procedures as per the DOPT guidelines.
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....
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....
Appointments on deputation do not confer a right to continue beyond the specified term, and the distinction between transfer and appointment on deputation is significant.
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.
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 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
