IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:-

The Hon’ble Justice Madhuresh Prasad And The Hon’ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya WPCT 94 of 2025 Vukkem Rambabu Vs.

Union of India and Others For the Petitioner-in-person : Mr. Vukkem Rambabu.

For the Union of India : Mr. Brajesh Jha, Mr. Somnath Adhikary.

For the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty, Mr. S. Saha.

Judgment on : November 10, 2025 Madhuresh Prasad, J.:

1. The writ petitioner was the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, (CAT for short) Kolkata Bench. His Original Application (OA) 29 of 2025 along with MA 70 of 2025 filed therein were dismissed by the CAT.

The same is put to challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The brief narration of relevant facts is that the petitioner was a Senior Private Secretary in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Visakhapatnam. He applied for the post of Principal Private Secretary (PPS) on deputation at Armed Forces Tribunal, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as AFT), in response to a Circular issued by the Principal Registrar, AFT, New Delhi.

Upon conduct of skill test and interview, appointment letter dated

17.02.2022 was issued in favour of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner was not being relieved by his parent department and only after order passed by the Jabalpur Bench of the CAT in OA No. 493 of 2022, on 19.01.2024, the petitioner could finally be relieved. He thus joined the office of AFT, Kolkata on 16.04.2024, i.e. more than two years after issuance of his appointment order.

4. Within six months from his joining, the petitioner was served with a three dated 03.10.2024 for repatriation to his parent mdeopnatrhtsm’ e(9n0t. dTahyes ’n) ontoicteic ew as issued by the Registrar AFT Kolkata Bench acting upon a communication of the AFT Principal Bench, dated 24.09.2024. The petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing OA No. 1513 of 2024 challenging the repatriation notice dated 03.10.2024, the same was disposed of in the following terms:

“3. However, during the course of hearing the applicant in person has submitted that he wants to withdraw the instant OA to file a detailed representation against the Premature Repatriation Notice dated

03.10.2024 (Annexure-A/9) before the appropriate authority.

4. The prayer is allowed.

5. Accordingly, the OA is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to make appropriate representation before the authority, if so desired.”

5. The petitioner thereafter made a representation dated 04.11.2024. While was relieved by an order tdhaet epde t0it2io.0n1e.r2’0s 2r5e pwrehsiecnht aaticocno rwdiansg p eton dtihneg hwer it petitioner was served through e-mail. The petitioner thereafter filed another OA 29 of 2025 along with MA 70 of 2025, which was disposed of by the CAT Kolkata Bench vide judgment dated 25.032025, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition.

6. It is submitted by the petitioner in person that as per DOPT (OM) dated

17.06.2020, para 9 of which is relied upon by the Union of India, the petitioners tenure of deputation could not be curtailed, unless a situation arises for premature reversion to the parent cadre. Paragraph 9 of OM dated 17.06.2010 reads:

“9. Premature reversion of deputationist to parent cadere:

Normally, when an employee is appointed on deputation/foreign service, his services are placed at the disposal of the parent Ministry/Department at the end of the tenure. However, as and when a situation arises for premature reversion to the parent cadre of the deputationist, his services could be so returned after giving an advance notice of at least three months to the lending Ministry/ Department and the employee concerned.” (emphasis ours)

7. His next submission is that unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance are the only other two grounds based on which premature repatriation could have been resorted to. In the present case neither of these two grounds wunesrues tmainadabe leo. uInt. thTish ec onpneteicttioi