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.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Petitioner, an employee of Irrigation and Water Resource Department, was sent on deputation to U.P. Project Corporation Limited vide order dated 07.02.2024. For reference said order is reproduced hereinafter:

2. Petitioner has worked at U.P. Project Corporation Limited only for about one year and by means of impugned order dated 20.02.2025 he was repatriated to his parent department. Said order is also reproduced hereinafter:

3. Aforesaid order is impugned in present case. Sri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, has made following arguments:

(i) Petitioner was appointed on deputation with U.P. Project Corporation Limited by an order issued on behalf of Governor of State for a period of three years, therefore, any order to repatriate him to his parent department could be passed only by State Government on behalf of Governor.

(ii) The borrowing department, i.e., U.P. Project Corporation Limited has no power to repatriate petitioner before the fixed period of three years.

(iii) If the veil is lifted there are certain allegations levelled against the petitioner which are also reflected in counter affidavit filed by respondents, therefore, impugned order is punitive and without any inquiry no such impugned order can be passed.

(iv) U.P. Project Corporation Limited is still asking parent department to send Officers on deputation, as such borrowing department has still need of Officers on deputation.

(v) He has placed heavy reliance on a judgment passed by this Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2005 SCC OnLine All 600.

4. Per contra, Ms. Vishakha Pandey, learned counsel appearing for Respondent-U.P. Project Corporation Limited, submitted that it is a case of transfer on deputation and not appointment on deputation, therefore, petitioner has no indefeasible right to continue on deputation for the period prescribed.

5. Learned counsel also submitted that U.P. Project Corporation Limited is an independent entity and can take decisions in terms of applicable regulations. Governor is not an authority to pass orders for employees of U.P. Project Corporation Limited, therefore, the borrowing department can pass an order for repatriation.

6. She further submitted that impugned order is not stigmatic since nothing adverse is mentioned therein though it has not been denied that work of petitioner was not satisfactory and except issuing certain notices to him, no proceedings were initiated against him.

7. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments passed by Supreme Court in the cases of Ratilal B. Soni and others vs. State of Gujarat and others , AIR 1990 SC 1132 and Kunal Nanda vs. Union of India and another , AIR 2000 SC 2076 .

8. I have considered the above submissions and perused the material on record.

9. First issue before this Court to consider is, whether petitioner has any right to remain on deputation for the period prescribed in order.

10. Undisputedly, it is not a case where petitioner was appointed on deputation after participating a selection process. It was a simple order of deputation. Therefore, in view of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Union of India and another vs. S.N. Maity and another , 2015(4) SCC 164 the case of petitioner could not fall under appointment on deputation and it may be a case of only transfer on deputation. Therefore, petitioner has no indefeasible right and in that background it would be relevant to reproduce following paragraphs of S.N. Maity (supra):

“14. In the above backdrop, this Court made a distinction between 'transfer on deputation' and 'appointment on deputation' and proceeded to lay down thus:

"14.