Once a government servant is permanently absorbed in the borrowing department and his lien in the parent organization is terminated, repatriation is illegal.

Janak Raj Kotwal, J.:-

1. This is a writ petition, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing Government Order No. 47-GAD of 2015 dated 15.01.2015, whereby petitioner has been ordered to report back to the J & K State Power Development Corporation (for short, the Corporation) and the Corporation has been directed to take steps for revival of petitioner’s lien against the post held by him prior to his deputation as OSD in the Chief Minister’s Private Office vide Government Order No. 301-GAD of 2009 dated 21.02.2009. Besides, petitioner seeks writ of mandamus for directing respondents to allow the petitioner to serve in the Chief Minister’s Secretariat as OSD or to adjust him on some other suitable equivalent post in the General Administration Department. Petitioner also seeks writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to re-designate the petitioner as Deputy Secretary in the Government in accordance with proposal/recommendation made by the Chief Minister’s Secretariat and to pay him salary and other allowances available as OSD in Chief Minister’s Secretariat.

2. Heard. I have perused the record.

3. A few facts, which are not disputed, require to be stated. Pursuant to Vacancy Notice No. PDC/Estt./Legal/1470-1475 dated 09.07.2008 issued by the Corporation/respondent No. 2, petitioner on the recommendation of the Selection Committee was appointed vide Order No. PDC/133 of 2008 dated 18.10.2008 as Deputy General Manager (Legal) in the Corporation. The appointment of the petitioner initially was on probation for two years and the appointment order provided also that service conditions of the petitioner will be governed in accordance with rules followed by the State Government for their employees till such time as the Corporation adopts its own rules.

4. The State Government vide Government Order No. 301-GAD of 2009 dated 21.02.2009 issued by the General Administration Department (GAD)/respondent No. 1, transferred the petitioner and posted him as OSD in the Chief Minister’s Private Office at Srinagar on deputation basis. In compliance with this order the Corporation relieved the petitioner from the Corporation on 25.02.2009 to enable him to join his new place of posting. Respondent No. 1 in continuation with the transfer-cum-deputation order dated 21.02.2009 issued Government Order No. 765-GAD of 2009 dated 15.06.2009, whereby sanction was accorded to creation of a temporary post of OSD in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200 (pre-revised-non-plan) in the Chief Minister’s Private Office at Srinagar for the purpose of the drawal of salary of the petitioner against the post so created. This order was issued with a condition that:

“The post shall cease to exist after transfer of Shri Tariq Ahmed from the Hon’ble Chief Minister’s Office either by way of his repatriation to parent organization or otherwise.”

5. The Managing Director of the Corporation vide his communication No. JKSPDC/ADM/EG-103/CJ/4052 dated 05.02.2010 addressed to the Administrative Secretary of the General Administration Department/respondent No. 1 requested for repatriation of the petitioner to the Corporation for the reason that the Corporation was confronted with many court cases and other legal issues. The Managing Director also requested the Administrative Secretary that if the services of the petitioner are required by the GAD, the same may be communicated to his office so that the Corporation is able to make alternate arrangement by making fresh recruitment of Deputy General Manager (Legal). The respondent No. 1 vide his Communication No. GAD(Ser)Genl/29/2009 dated 26.03.2010 addressed to the Managing Director of the Corporation turned down the request for repatriation of the petitioner by intimating that “the request was placed before the Competent Authority (Hon’ble Chief Minister) who has directed that Sh. Tariq Kakroo’s services are required as OSD.”

6. Pursuant to and consequent upon the refusal of its request for petitioner’s repatriation, the Corporat