Back
PANKAJ JAIN
Kulwinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners appointed as constables on deputation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. use of supreme court precedent for continuation on deputation. (Para 3) |
| 3. analysis of rule 21.25 regarding minimum deputation period. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. writ petition dismissed; authority to decide on repatriation. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT
Pankaj Jain, J. (Oral)
Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 22nd of January, 2015 passed by respondent No.3 placed on record at Annexure P-4 and consequential order dated 17th of March, 2015 placed on record at Annexure P-5.
2. As per the pleadings raised in the writ petition, petitioners claim that they were initially appointed as Constable in Punjab Armed Police in the year 1990-91 and were sent on deputation to State Transport Department from where they were repatriated to their parent department on 12th of October, 2014/18th of October, 2014 respectively. Further vide order dated 10th of November, 2014, 11th of November, 2014 and that dated 12th of November, 2014, the petitioners were again sent to deputation with the CIT Int
Point of Law : A deputationist does not have an indefeasible right to insist his continuance in borrowing Department, when his service is no longer required in exigencies of service.
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.
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 court ruled that repatriation during ongoing litigation violates interim orders, necessitating reinstatement.
Refusal to accept promotion under Rule 18.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules results in a two-year debarment, which is lawful and applicable to all government employees.
Point of law: Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings Under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unr....
A deputationist lacks an indefeasible right to remain in a position, and authorities can recall employees based on service exigencies without breaching natural justice principles if no prejudice is c....
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
