SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, RAJNISH KUMAR, JJ.
Vimal Kumar Mishra – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Deptt. Urban Deve. Urban Employment Poverty Alleviation Lko. And Ors – Respondents
Special Appeal Defective No.61 of 2022
Decided on : 10-11-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Apoorva Tewari
For the Respondent: Kazim Ibrahim

In case of 'appointment on deputation', employer cannot claim employee has no right to continue till completion of deputation - Director's decision not to extend deputation must be based on evaluation as stipulated in contract

Headnote:

Deputation - Termination of deputation - 21.06.2017, SUDA invited applications from State Government employees for deputation against various posts - Appellant appointed on deputation as Project Officer - Contract stipulated extension of deputation for one year based on evaluation - Order of repatriation and termination of deputation challenged - Court found termination arbitrary and not in conformity with contract - Order quashed - Appellant directed to join parent department

Fact of the Case:

Appellant challenged order terminating his deputation and repatriating him to his parent department - Appellant appointed on deputation as Project Officer - Order of repatriation and termination of deputation challenged in writ petition - Interim order stayed operation of repatriation order - Appellant not reinstated despite interim order - Special Appeal filed against dismissal of writ petition

Finding of the Court:

Order of repatriation and termination of deputation found to be arbitrary and not in conformity with contract of appointment - Director's decision not to extend deputation not based on evaluation as stipulated in contract - Order quashed - Appellant directed to join parent department

Issues: Validity of order terminating deputation and repatriating appellant - Compliance with contract of appointment - Director's decision not to extend deputation based on evaluation

Ratio Decidendi: In case of 'appointment on deputation', employer cannot claim employee has no right to continue till completion of deputation - Director's decision not to extend deputation must be based on evaluation as stipulated in contract - Order of repatriation and termination of deputation found to be arbitrary and not in conformity with contract

Final Decision: Special Appeal allowed - Judgment and order of Single Judge set aside - Order of repatriation and termination of deputation quashed - Appellant directed to join parent department - Appellant to be paid 50% of salary till 26.10.2022

JUDGMENT :

1. This intra-court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court assails the order dated 31.05.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge whereby Writ-A No.14772 of 2020 has been dismissed.

2. Before learned Single Judge, the appellant-petitioner, by filing the aforesaid writ petition, had challenged the order dated 08.07.2020, passed by the respondent No.2-Director, State Urban Development Agency (hereinafter referred to as “SUDA”) whereby his deputation with SUDA was cancelled and he was repatriated to his parent department. The appellant-petitioner also challenged the order dated 15.07.2020, whereby he was relieved from the post of Project Officer, District Urban Development Agency (hereinafter referred to as “DUDA”), Sultanpur and the order dated 29.07.2020 whereby one Smt. Sunita Singh was posted on the post which was being occupied by the appellant-petitioner.

3. During pendency of the writ petition, an order dated 09.04.2021 was passed by the Director, SUDA in compliance of the interim order, dated 17.11.2020, passed by the learned Single Judge, refusing to reinstate the appellant-petitioner on the post in question and only paying the salary from 08.07.2020 till 4.12.2020. The said order dated 09.04.2021 was also challenged by the appellant-petitioner by amending the writ petition before the learned Single Judge.

4. Before adverting to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we may notice certain facts of the case.

5. By issuing a Notification on 21.06.2017, SUDA invited applications from the State Government employees working in different government departments to be appointed on deputation against various posts in SUDA/DUDA. In tune with the said Notification, an advertisement was published in the newspaper on 26.06.2017. The appellant-petitioner, who was working since 1989 in the department of Animal Husbandry, Government of U.P. made an application for appointment on deputation on the post of Project Officer. It is not in dispute that the appellant-petitioner was subjected to selection and on the basis of such selection, appointment order was issued on 27.10.2017 appointing him on deputation to the post of Project Officer. At the relevant point of time i.e. the time when the appellant-petitioner was appointed with SUDA, he was working on the post of Pashudhan Prasar Adhikari, Directorate of Animal Husbandry, Lucknow. The appointment by way of deputation made on 27.10.2017 was for the period of one year which was subject to further conditions given in the contract of appointment.

6. The contract of appointment entered into between the appellant-petitioner and SUDA is on record, according to which appellant-petitioner was to present himself under the orders and the officers of SUDA. Contract of appointment further stipulates that the appointment of the appellant-petitioner on deputation was for the initial period of one year and further that on conclusion of initial period of one year, his work and conduct was to be evaluated by SUDA and in case nothing adverse against the interest of SUDA was found, his term of deputation by the SUDA would be extended for further period of one year. Contract further provides that similarly the term of deputation would be extended for further one year each time on evaluation of work and conduct of the appellant-petitioner, however, the maximum term of deputation would not be extended for more than five years. The relevant clauses of initial engagement and extension of term on deputation of the appellant-petitioner are available in his contract of appointment which are quoted herein under :

Þ¼1½ izFke i{k vius dks vfHkdj.k ds vkns'kksa ds rFkk muds vf/kdkfj;ksa rFkk izkf/kdkfj;ksa ds v/khu izLrqr djsxk] ftuds v/khu vfHkdj.k }kjk mls le; le; ij j[kk tkrk gS rFkk izFker% ,d o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, izfrfu;qfDr ij jgsxk tks lu ------------- ds ekg ----------- ds fnukad -------------- ls izkjEHk gksxh vkSj blesa varfoZ"V micU/kksa ds v/khu gksx

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top