IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
PANKAJ JAIN, J.
Kulwinder Singh & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO.5837 of 2015 (O&M)
Decided On : 19-1-2023
| 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 Intelligence Wing, Punjab under the Rule 21.25 of the PUNJAB POLICE RULES . Even before they could complete their minimum period of deputation prescribed under Rule 21.25 i.e. 3 years, they were ordered to be repatriated vide impugned order dated 17th March, 2015 (Annexure P-5). The petitioners were granted interim protection vide order dated 30th of March, 2015 and the orders of repatriation placed on record at Annexures P-4 and P-5 were ordered to be kept in abeyance. It is not disputed that on strength of such interim protection, the petitioners have continued to be in their department of deputation.
3. Counsel for the petitioners relies upon the law laid down by Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Inder Singh , AIR 1998 (SC) 7 to submit that the petitioners cannot be repatriated to the parent department and will have a right to continue therein.
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through records of the case.
5. In order to adjudicate the controversy in hand, it will be apt to pursue Rule 21.25 of the PUNJAB POLICE RULES which reads as under :-
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.