The court affirmed that an employee's claim for absorption after deputation does not guarantee automatic rights and must comply with established procedures of both the parent and borrowing organizations.

JUDGMENT :

Om Prakash Shukla, J.

1. Heard Shri Lalit Shukla and Shri Praveen Kumar, learned Counsel representing the appellant, Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh assisted by Shri Varun Pandey, learned Counsel representing the respondent No.1 and Shri Vaibhav Tewari, learned Counsel representing the other respondents.

2. This special appeal has been filed by the appellant under Rule 5, Section-C of Chapter-VIII of the ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RULES impugning judgment/order dated 01.10.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 8234 (S/S) of 2020. Apparently, the learned Single Judge, vide impugned Judgment, due to various reasons, did not find the case of the appellant fit for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as such, dismissed the writ petition.

3. It would be apt to mention herein that the appellant in writ petition No. 8234 (S/S) of 2020 had sought to challenge the curtailment of his deputation and repatriation from the Unique Identification Authority of India (herein after referred as ‘UIDAI’) to his parent Corporation, namely, Metals and Minerals Trading Corporation, Jaipur (hereinafter referred as ‘MMTC’) and in that regard, the appellant had challenged two orders, (i) dated 16.03.2020 which is the notice of his repatriation; and (ii) by an amendment in the said writ petition, another order dated 28.05.2020 passed by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of UIDAI rejecting the petitioner's representation against the order dated 16.03.2020.

Brief facts

4. First to the factual exposition. This Court abjures from a detailed narrative and refer to only those facts and to the extent, as is necessary and is well captured in the writ petition. The appellant being an employee of MMTC, Jaipur and in view of the OM dated 10.10.2013 inviting applications from eligible persons for filling up various posts in UIDAI on deputation basis at its regional office, Lucknow, applied, and was selected for such deputation. He was appointed on deputation as Deputy Director at the regional office of UIDAI, Lucknow vide an order dated 05.02.2014 for a period of 3 years from the date of taking over charge of the post or until further orders, whichever event takes place earlier. The terms and conditions of deputation in UIDAI were to be governed by the Department of Personnel and Training (herein after referred as ‘DoPT’) OM dated 17.06.2010, as was also mentioned in the order of deputation dated 05.02.2014 and the OM dated 10.10.2013.

5. Pursuant to his selection on deputation basis as Deputy Director, the appellant joined at the regional office of UIDAI at Lucknow in 2014 itself and his initial tenure came to expire on 19.02.2017, however, his deputation was extended on yearly basis from time to time. It is apparent from records that last yearly extension was granted by the Chief Executive Officer of the UIDAI wherein his approval for extension of the appellant’s tenure was granted for a further period of one year from 18.02.2020, that is, upto 18.02.2021. Albeit, in the intervening period in August, 2019, the Deputy Director General of UIDAI sought explanation from the appellant regarding his day to day work and the reasons for non-submission of reports on time. Although, the appellant submitted a written reply on 30.08.2019, however, his reply was not found to be satisfactory and, accordingly, a comment was recorded by the Deputy Director General, who incidentally was also the head of the regional office at