2018 Supreme(All) 1634
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW BENCH)
IRSHAD ALI, J.
SUNIL KUMAR SINGH — Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF U.P. THRU PRIN SECY PWD CIVIL SECTT LKO AND ORS — Respondent
Service Single No. 9082 of 2018
Decided on : 09-04-2018
Advocate Appeared:
Shobhit Kant, Adv.
Prior consent of the employee is required before making a recommendation or appointment on deputation, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court.
Headnote:
Deputation - Appointment on Deputation - State of Punjab & Ors. Vs Inder Singh & Ors., (1998) AIR SC 7, Kavi Raj Vs State of J & K & Ors., (2013) AIR SC 767
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Junior Engineer, was sent on deputation without his prior consent. The petitioner challenged the order dated 11.12.2017, which placed him on deputation without his consent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prior consent of the employee is required before making a recommendation or appointment on deputation, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's appointment on deputation without his prior consent was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs Inder Singh & Ors. and Kavi Raj Vs State of J & K & Ors., which held that prior consent of the employee is imperative before posting on deputation outside the parent department.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order dated 11.12.2017, stating that it was not sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court.
Irshad Ali, J.
Heard Sri Shobhit Kant, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the State/respondents and perused the material brought on record.
2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.12.2017, whereby the petitioner has been sent on deputation.
3. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is working on the post of Junior Engineer at Nirman Khand, Saharanpur since 18.10.2010. On verbal request of the Government of U.P., the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, recommended two names of the Assistant Engineers (Civil) and four names of the Junior Engineers (Civil) who were required to be posted at U.P. State Highway authority for repair work at Delhi Saharanpur-Yamnotri Road. On the very next date, vide letter dated 07.11.2017, Chief Engineer, Western Zone, Public Works Department (respondent No.4), recommended the name of the petitioner and without taking his consent, placed him on deputation by means of the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without taking prior consent of the petitioner, he cannot be posted on deputation in any other department. He next submitted that the name of Delhi-Shahranpur-Yamnotri State Highway No.57 has been declared as Delhi-Shahranpur-National Highway 709-B, vide letter dated 18.12.2017. Thus, petitioner cannot be posted on deputation being an employee of the State Government. In support of his argument, he relied upon the two judgments of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs Inder Singh & Ors., (1998) AIR SC 7. Paragraph 19 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted below :-
"Concept of "deputation" is well understood in service law and has a recognized meaning. 'Deputation' has a different connotation in-service law and the dictionary meaning of the word 'deputation' is of no help. In simple words 'deputation' means service outside the cadre or outside the parent department. Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside his cadre, that is to say, to another department on a temporary basis. After the expiry period of deputation the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he has earned promotion in his parent department as per Recruitment Rules. Whether the transfer is outside the normal field of deployment or not is decided by the authority who controls the service or post from which the employee is transferred. There can be no deputation without the consent of the person so deputed and he would, therefore, know his rights and privileges in the deputation post. The law on deputation and repatriation is quite settled as we have also seen in various judgments which we have referred to above. There is no escape for the respondents now to go back to their parent departments and working there as Constables or Head Constables as the case may be."
5. He further relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kavi Raj Vs State of J & K & Ors., (2013) AIR SC 767. The para 20 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted below :-
"Before concluding, it is essential to deal with certain inferences drawn by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. According to the learned Single Judge, prior consent of an employee is imperative, pending, peremptory and mandatory, before he is posted on deputation outside his parent department. No statutory rule has been brought to our notice, requiring prior consent of an employee, before his deployment against a post beyond his parent cadre. The fact, that the appellants consent was not sought before their posting at the Government Medical College, Jammu (and/or the hospitals associated therewith) would be in our view have any determinative affect on the present controversy. Broadly, an employee can only be posted (or transferred) to a post against which he is selected. This would ensure his stationing, within the cadre of posts, under his princip