Back
2005(1) JLJ 7
R.V. Raveendran, C.J. and K.K. Lahoti, J.
S.M.P. Sharma (Dr.) v. State of M.P. and another
L.P.As No. 421 and 422 of 2004; against the order of Single Bench passed in
W.Ps. No. 4069 and 4049 of 2004; Decided on 30.7.2004.
Appellants are Veterinary Assistant Surgeons belonging to the Veterinary Department. It is stated that they were deputed to the Rural Development Department and were working as Chief Executive Officers of Janpad Panchayats of Sirmour (District Rewa) and Amarpatan (District Satna) respectively. It is stated that they are on deputation from 1996 and 2003 respectively.
By orders dated 24.5.2004 and 4.6.2004, respectively, the Veterinary Department recalled their services along with several others. The said orders were challenged by the appellants in W.P. No. 4069/2004 and 4049/2004. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petitions by orders dated 12.7.2004, which are challenged in these Letters Patent Appeals. [Paras 2 & 3
Held: While deputation requires the consent of the employee, in addition to the consent of the lending and borrowing departments, recalling the service of the employee by the parent department does not require the consent of the employee. The parent department has always the right to recall the services of its employees sent on deputation, in the absence of any specific contract assuring the employee of a particular tenure in respect of the deputation post. AIR 2000 SC 2076 followed. ILR 1970(1) Pun. 468 (FB) relied on. [Para 5
(2) Civil Servant -- on deputation -- likely to be absorbed in borrower department -- no ground to refuse recalling by parent department unless he has already been absorbed.
Unless an employee on depuration has already been absorbed in the borrower department, he can always be recalled or repatriated to the parent department..... an employee on deputation has no vested right to get absorbed in the borrower department.
.... Admittedly, in this case, the appellants were not absorbed in the borrower department. Mere proposal for absorption, even if true, cannot come in the way of parent department recalling the services of its any employee, at any time before absorption. AIR 2000 SC 2076 followed. [Para 7
(3)Civil Servant -- on deputation -- has no vested right to continue as such -- recalling neither result of mala fides nor by way of punishment -- even of on account of question posed in legislature, it is not prohibited -- it is a matter of policy. [Para 8
(4) Civil Servant -- on deputation -- some employees sent back on deputation because their services were required for completion of specified projects on which they were deputed -- case is not of any discrimination. [Para 9
(5) Precedent -- admitting and granting ad interim stay -- does not lay down any principle of law -- not a precedent -- precedent is final decision of the case. AIR 1987 SC 1345 distinguished. [Paras 11 & 12
¼1½ flfoy lsod && izfrfu;qfDr ij && ,slk deZpkjh okil cqykus ds fy,] izfrfu;qfDr ds in ij fuf‘pr inkof/k dk vk‘olku nsus dh fofufnZ"V lafonk ds vHkko esa] deZpkjh dh lgefr visf{kr ughaA
vihykFkhZx.k i‘kqfpfdRlk foHkkx ds i‘kqfpfdRlk lgk;d ‘kY; fpfdRld gSaA dfFkr gS fd og xzkeh.k fodkl foHkkx es izfrfu;qDr Fks rFkk Øe‘k% fljekSj ¼ftyk jhok½ vkSj vejikVu ¼ftyk lruk½ dh tuin iapk;rksa ds eq[; dk;zikyd vf/kdkfj;ksa dh Hkk¡fr dk;Zrj FksA dfFkr gS fd og Øe‘k% 1996 rFkk 2003 ls izfrfu;qfDr ij gSaA
Øe‘k% vkns‘k fnukad 24-5-2005 rFkk 4-6-2004 }kjk i‘kqfpfdRlk foHkkx esa vU; vusd yksxksa ds lkFk mUgsa lsok esa okil cqyk;k x;kA mDr vkns‘kksa ij vihykFkhZx.k us fjV ;kfpdk Ø- 4069@2004 rFkk 4049@2004 esa vk{ksi fd;kA fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k us vkns‘k ns; fnukad 12-7-2004 }kjk] tks bu ySVlZ isVsaV vihyksa esa vkf{kIr gS] ;kfpdk,¡ [kkfjt dj nhaA ¿ iSjk 2 ,oa 3À
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % tcfd izfrfu;qfDr ds fy, m/kkj nsus okys rFkk m/kkj ysus okys foHkkxksa dh lgefr ds vfrfjDr deZpkjh dh lgefr visf{kfr gSa] iSr`d foHkkx }kjk deZpkjh dks lsok esa okil cqyk, tks ds fy, deZpkjh dh lgefr visf{kr ugha gSA iSr`d foHkkx dks lnSo dh deZpkjh dks izfrfu;qfDr ds in ij fuf‘pr inkof/k dk vk‘oklu nsus dh fof‘k"V lafonk ds vHkko esa] izfrfu;qfDr ij Hksts x, vius deZpkfj;ksa dks lsok esa okil cqykus dk vf/kdkj izkIr gSA , vkb vkj 2000 ,l lh 2076 vuqlfjrA vkb ,y vkj 1970¼1½ iatkc 468 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 5À
¼2½ flfoy lsod && izfrfu;qfDr ij && m/kkj ysus okys foHkkx esa vkesfyr fd, tkus dh laHkkouk && iSr`d foHkkx }kjk okil cqyk, tkus ls bUdkj djus dk vk/kkj ugha tc rd fd mls igys gh vkesfyr ugha dj fy;k x;k gksA
tc rd izfrfu;qDr deZpkjh m/kkj ysus okys foHkkx esa igys gh vkesfyr ugha gks x;k gks] mls iSr`d foHkkx esa lnSo gh okil cqyk;k ;k laizR;kofrZr fd;k tk ldrk gSA------- izfrfuqDr deZpkjh dh m/kkj ysus okys foHkkx esa vkesfyr fd, tkus dk fufgr vf/kdkj ugha gSA--------Lohd`rr% bl ekeys esa] vihykFkhZx.k m/kkj ysus okys foHkkx esa vkesfyr ugha gq, FksA vkesyu ds fy, izLrkoek=] lR; gks rc Hkh] iSr`d foHkkx }kjk vius fdlh deZpkjh dks] vkesyu ls iwoZ fdlh Hkh le;] lsok esa cqyk, tkus eas m/kkj ugha gks ldrkA , vkb vkj 2000 ,l lh 2076 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 7À
¼3½ flfoy lsod && izfrfu;qfDr ij && cus jgus dk fufgr vf/kdkj ugha gS && okil cqyk;k tkuk u vln~Hkko dk ifj.kke] u naMLo:i gh && fo/kku lHkk esa fd, x, iz‘u ds dkj.k gks rc Hkh ;g izfrf"k) ugha && ;g uhfr dk fo"k; gSA ¿ iSjk 8À
¼4½ flfoy lsod && izfrfu;qfDr ij && dqN deZpkjh izfrfu;qfDr ij okil Hksts x, D;kasfd ftu fofufnZ"V ifj;kstukvksa ij og izfrfu;qDr Fks muds iwjs gksus rd deZpkfj;ksa dh lsok vko‘;d Fkh && ekeyk foHksn dk ugha gSA ¿ iSjk 9À
¼5½ iwoZ fu.kZ; && xzg.k rFkk var%dkyhu jksd dk iznku && fof/k dk fl)kar vf/kdfFkr ugha djrk && iwoZ fu.kZ; ugha && iwoZ fu.kZ; ekeys dk vaafre fofu‘p; gksrk gSA , vkb vkj 1987 ,l lh 1345 izHksfnrA ¿ iSjk 11 ,oa 12À
Raveendran, C.J. -- 1. These two appeals involving common questions are heard and disposed of by this common order.
2. Appellants are Veterinary Assistant Surgeons belonging to the Veterinary Department. It is stated that they were deputed to the Rural Development Department and were working as Chief Executive Officers of Janpad Panchayats of Sinnour (District Rewa) and Amarpatan (District Satna) respectively. It is stated that they are on deputation from 1996 and 2003 respectively.
3. By orders dated 24.5.2004 and 4.6.2004, respectively, the Veterinary Department recalled their services along with several others. The said orders were challenged by the appellants in W.P. No. 4069/2004 and 4049/2004. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petitions by orders dated 12.7.2004, which are challenged in these Letters Patent Appeals.
4. The appellants have urged the following contentions in these appeals :
(i) The consent of the borrowing department and the deputationists is necessary before recalling the services of the deputationists. In the cases of appellants, such consent was not obtained.
(ii) As there was a proposal to consider their cases for absorption in the borrower department, they could not be recalled to the parent department; .
(iii) The services of the appellants were recalled not because of any need of the parent department, but as an illogical reaction to starred question No. 272 dated 24.2.2004 in the M.P. Vidhana Sabha;
(iv) While several other similarly situated deputationists, whose services were recalled under the same orders were subsequently permitted to continue on deputation, by Notification dated 30.6.2004, they have not been permitted to continue, thereby leading to hostile discrimination;
(v) As another similar writ petition filed before the Gwalior Bench was already admitted, the learned single Judge also ought to have admitted the writ petition instead of rejecting the petition at the stage of admission.
Re : Contention (i) :
5. While deputation requires the consent of the employee, in addition to the consent of the lending and borrowing departments, recalling the service of the employee by the parent department does not require the consent of the employee. The parent department has always the right to recall the services of its employees sent on deputation, in the absence of any specific contract assuring the employee of a particular tenure in respect of the deputation post. The Supreme Court in Kunal Nandu v. Union of India (AIR 2000 SC 2076) held thus:
"The basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the person concerned can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in his substantive position therein at the instance of either of the departments and there is no vested right in such a person to continue for long on deputation ....."
A Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court considered the question whether the lending authority can recall the service of the deputationist unilaterally even before the expiry of the period of deputation, in Sohan Singh v. The State of Punjab (ILR 1970(1) Punjab 468). It held :
''That an officer of the State Government, while on deputation to foreign service for a specified period, continues to be an employees of the State Government during his period on deputation and remains subject to the control of the Government. He is also entitled to be considered for any promotion etc., that way become available in his parent department. The fact that for all purposes he is considered to remain on the cadre in which he was included before his transfer and that he is entitled to be considered for promotion even during the period of his deputation indicates clearly that the period, if specified, is only tentative and may primarily be for the benefit of the foreign employer to have an idea of the period during which his services wil1 be available. No contract comes into being between the State Government and its employee when he sent on deputat
SupremeToday
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
