Back
2003 Supreme(Mad) 2067
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. B.SUBHASHAN REDDY & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.GNANAPRAKASAM
S.Arumugam & Others - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu & Others - Respondents
WA.No.2682/2003 & WAMP.No.4183/2003 and WP.No.15726/2003
Decided On : 23 December 2003
Deputationists do not have a vested right to be absorbed in the foreign department and can be repatriated to their parent department at any time.
Headnote:
Deputation - Employment - GO.MS.No.741 - Rameswar Prasad Vs. Managing Director, UP.Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited - Kunal Nanda Vs. Union of India and another-AIR-2000-SC-2076 - Union of India Vs. S.N.Panikar (2001-10-SCC-520) - State of Punjab and others Vs. Inder Singh and others (1997-8-SCC-372) - MD, UP.Land Development Corporation and another Vs. Amar Singh and others (2003-5-SCC-388) - ONGC - Absorption - Repatriation
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, employees of respondents 1 and 2, were sent on deputation with respondents 3 to 5. The appellants sought a Writ of Mandamus to be absorbed in M/s.Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) after being directed to be repatriated by the respondents 1 and 2.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants, as deputationists, did not have a right to be absorbed in the foreign department and could be repatriated to their parent department at any time. The court dismissed the writ petition and appeal, upholding the actions of the respondents 1 and 2 in repatriating the appellants.
Issues: Whether the appellants had a right to be absorbed in ONGC as deputationists and challenge the repatriation by respondents 1 and 2.
Ratio Decidendi: Deputationists do not have a vested right to be absorbed in the foreign department and can be repatriated to their parent department at any time.
Final Decision: The writ petition and appeal were dismissed, upholding the repatriation of the appellants by respondents 1 and 2.
K.Gnanaprakasam, J.
1. The writ petitioners are the appellants.
2. The writ appeal is directed against the orders of the learned single Judge made in WPMP.No.19767/2003 and WPMP.No.1465/2003.
3. The relief sought for in the Writ Petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider and absorb the petitioners in M/s.Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'ONGC'). The appellants had an order of interim injunction in WPMP.No.1465/2003 and the respondents filed vacate stay petition in WPMP.No.19767/2003 and both petitions were heard together and the order of interim injunction was vacated and the application to vacate stay was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred this appeal.
4. At the time when the writ appeal was taken up, it is stated by the learned Advocate for the appellants that the relief sought for in the writ petition would govern this appeal and in the said circumstances, the Writ Petition is drawn and hear along with this appeal.
5. The writ petitioners, who are 19 in number are employed under the respondents 1 and 2. They were sent on deputation with the respondents 3 to 5 on various dates. According to the appellants, the 1st respondent by GO.MS.No.741 dated 24.6.1978 evolved certain norms regarding the period for which an employee can be sent on deputation and it is stated that as per the said GO, the maximum period of deputation is 3 years normally and 4 years in special circumstances. The petitioners were sent on deputation initially for a period of 3 years and extended by one year and later by one more year. On 3.2.1999, the Home Secretary wrote a letter to the 2nd respondent, Fire Services Director, drawing his attention to the fact that keeping people on deputation for more than 4 years is contrary to the norms and directed him to either repatriate them to the parent department or ask the foreign employer (ONGC) to absorb them permanently. Several correspondences took place between the respondents 1 and 2 and the respondents 3 to 5 and ultimately, the 1st respondent by letter dated 26.2.2002 required the ONGC to revert the petitioners back to the parent department and further stated that the 1st respondent would however provide personnel for replacement of fire service personnel immediately. The 1st respondent is not willing to spare the services of the petitioners to the foreign employer (ONGC). Again on 15.3.2002 the 1st respondent wrote a letter to the 2nd respondent calling for a list of persons to be sent on deputation in place of the petitioners. As against the same, the petitioners made a representation to the Government and to other concerned authorities, but, the same was of no avail and the request of the petitioners for absorption in the parent department turned down and action was taken by the respondents 1 and 2, the petitioners have approached the court to assail the said action.
6. When the writ appeal along with the writ petition and the miscellaneous petitions came up for hearing before this court, a question was put to the appellants, whether a new set of Fire Officers, who are deputed by the respondents 1 and 2 to replace the appellants, have been made as parties and as the answer was 'no', they were given time to file one such application and thereupon the appellants have filed a petition to implead the respondents 6 to 25 as parties to the writ appeal.
7. Heard the learned Advocate for the appellants and the respondents 1 to 5 and the respondents 6 to 25.
8. Admittedly, the appellants are employees of the respondents 1 and 2. They were sent on deputation with the respondents 3 to 5. In normal course, the deputation would be for a period of 3 years as per GO.MS.No.741 dated 24.6.1978 and in the special circumstances, it would be for 4 years. But, it is stated that the appellants are with the foreign department viz. Respondents 3 to 5 for more than 4 years. Taking that as a ground, the appellants claim that th
