Repatriation from deputation is generally permissible only after the completion of the prescribed tenure, and reliance on judicial precedents is only valid if the factual conditions of the deputation orders are identical.

Order

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were sent on deputation vide order dated 30.06.2025 and 08.08.2025 for a period of one year, however, despite completion of period of one year, the respondents are not passing the order retpatriating the petitioners back to their parent Department. Learned counsel further submits that condition No.1 of order dated 08.08.2025 would make it clear that the period of deputation was only for one year, and thereafter, such period could have been extended only after following the specified procedure for further one year.

2. Learned counsel also submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.07.2025 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12808/2025 (Tina Kumari Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.), has considered the similar dispute and directed to repatriate the services of the petitioner in that case back to her parent Department.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4. Argument of the petitioner is that since vide order dated 08.08.2025, the petitioners were sent on deputation for a period of one year, therefore, after completion of period of one year, they are entitled to be repatriated back to their parent Department, yet it is a fact that one year has not completed since 08.08.2025 and learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to satisfy this Court with regard to arising any cause of action before completion of period of one year from the date of issuance of order dated 08.08.2025.

5. That apart, the order in the case of Tina Kumari (supra), relied upon by the petitioner, is not applicable for the reason that the conditions mentioned in the appointment/deputation letter in the case of Tina Kumari (supra) were are altogether different from the conditions in the present case. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Tina Kumari (supra) interfered on the specific pleadings by the petitioner in that case, the procedure contemplated in condition No.1 of the appointment/deputation letter was not followed. This Court finds that there is no averment whatsoever in the memo of writ petition with regard to not following any condition, whatsoever in the appointment/deputation letter in respect of the present petitioner. In view of above, order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Tina Kumari (supra) is not applicable in the instant case.

6. Consequently, this Court finds that the writ petition is frivolous and the same is hereby dismissed.

7. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.