Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Shashank Sachan – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.
1. These are the bunch of writ petitions, wherein Sri Sharad Pathak and Sri Pawan Kumar Pandey have argued on behalf of the petitioners, Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has appeared on behalf of the State-opposite parties and Sri Sanjay Basin, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sarvesh Dubey and Shobhit Mohan Shukla for opposite party No.2.
2. In the aforesaid bunch of writ petitions the grievance of all the petitioners is one and the same, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties all the writ petitions have been connected and are being decided by a common judgment. However, the leading writ petition would be Writ-A No.6157 of 2024 ( Shashank Sachan vs. State of U.P. and others ), so the facts of the case have been taken from the aforesaid leading writ petition.
3. The petitioners of the aforesaid writ petitions have challenged the impugned repatriation order whereby they have been repatriated to their parent department and they have also challenged the consequential relieving orders. Notably, on the first date of admission, the interim order has been granted by this Court.
4. The question
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.
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.
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 evaluatio....
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....
Appointments on deputation do not confer a right to continue beyond the specified term, and the distinction between transfer and appointment on deputation is significant.
The court ruled that repatriation during ongoing litigation violates interim orders, necessitating reinstatement.
A deputationist has no vested right to continue on deputation and can be repatriated by following due procedures as per the DOPT guidelines.
A deputationist has no vested right and can be repatriated for valid reasons, and public interest and administrative exigencies are valid grounds for transfer.
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
