JUDGMENT C.K. Thakker, CJ. (Oral) - This petition is filed by the petitioner, who is a permanent employee of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, respondent No. 3 herein, (HPSEB for short) for an appropriate writ, -direction or order, quashing and setting an order dated September 20, 2001 (Annexure P-4), by which Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation Ltd. (NJPC for short) had taken a decision to "repatriate" him to his parent department, i.e. HPSEB, w.e.f. September 30, 2001. Other reliefs have also been claimed.

2. Case of the petitioner before this Court is that he is an employee of HPSEB and he was posted on "secondment basis" in the NJPC. According to him, in accordance with the terms and conditions of secondment between HPSEB on the one hand and NJPC on the other, he could not be repatriated to HPSEB without the consent of the petitioner or in any case, without the consent or consultation with the HPSEB. Since the said action was taken without complying with the terms and conditions of secondment, the action is illegal and contrary to law.

3. Notice was issued to respondents and ad interim relief was granted, which was subsequently modified.

4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

5. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr. R.P.S. Thakur, contended that the action taken by NJPC is contrary to the agreement arrived at between HPSEB and NJPC. He also submitted that prior consent and in any case consultation with the HPSEB by NJPC was necessary and since it was not done, the action requires interference. He also submitted that as per the understanding arrived at between the two bodies, a cycle was to be maintained and if at the sweet will of the NJPC any person is permitted to be repatriated without consent or consultation with HPSEB, it will create several problems. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it was submitted that HPSEB is not in a position. To utilise the services by placing the petitioner on appropriate post and it would be mental harassment of the petitioner. The action is otherwise arbitrary and unreasonable and till a substitute is available, no action can be permitted. Hence, the petition deserves to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the order dated September 20, 2001.

6. Mr. Mittal, learned Counsel for HPSEB, submitted that even if this Court is of the view that there is no legal obligation on the part of NJPC to obtain consent, it was expected of NJPC to consult HPSEB before making an order of repatriation. At least courtesy demanded that before passing order dated September 20, 2001, NJPC ought to have taken HPSEB into confidence, when a number of persons are to be sent to HPSEB to NJPC on secondment basis. He, therefore, submitted that the action taken by NJPC cannot be said to be proper.

7. Mr. Shreedhar, on behalf of NJPC, submitted that whether the nomenclature is "deputation" or "secondment", an agreement was arrived at between two bodies and it was specifically mentioned in Clauses 3.1 that if the NJPC does not find any personnel suitable, he could be repatriated to HPSEB, which provide suitable replacement. He also submitted that even looking to the documents produced by the petitioner in the petition, there is no such right conferred either on the employee who is sent on secondment basis by HPSEB to NJPC of consent before his repatriation to the parent department, nor such consent of HPSEB is necessary. According to the learned Counsel, when a person is sent in any department other than his parent department, it is the right of that department to repatriate to parent department and neither consent nor consultation is necessary. The action taken, hence, cannot be said to be contrary to law.

8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, in our opinion, it cannot be said that by passing the impugned order dated September 20, 2001, by NJPC, repatriating the petitioner to his parent department (HPSEB), any illegality can be said to have been committed.

9. Our attention was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document