Advocates:
['SUDEEP AGRAWAL', '', 'MANOJ PARANJPE', 'AVADHESH MISHRA', 'A G']

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPS No.663 of 2016

Pramod Shukla S/o Hetram Shukla, Aged About 58 Years R/o Village

Saliyapara, Police Station, Post & Tahsil Pali, Civil And Revenue District

Korba Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban

Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Capital

Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Joint Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development

Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District

Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Director, Urban Administration And Development, Raipur District Raipur

Chhattisgarh

4. Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

5. Deputy Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

For Petitioner:

Shri Manoj Paranjpe with Shri Sudeep Agrawal, Advocates

For Respondent/State:

Shri Ramakant Mishra, Dy.AG

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

Order On Board

07/04/2016

Heard.

2.

A short issue arising for consideration in this petition as to whether the

impugned order constitutes deputation and secondly whether it could be done

without the consent of the petitioner.

3.

Quintessential facts, necessary for determination of controversy involved

in the petition, are that the petitioner is an officer borne in the cadre of Chief

2

Municipal Officer (Executive) constituted under Section 86 of the Chhattisgarh

Municipality Act, 1961 (In short “the Act of 1961”). The terms and conditions of

appointment, recruitment and other details of State Municipal Services

(Executive) are governed by the provisions contained in Chhattisgarh Municipal

Services (Executive) Rules, 1973. The petitioner substantively belongs to the

cadre of State Municipal Services (Executive) and there is no quarrel on this

factual aspect between the parties.

4.

While continuing as Chief Municipal Officer at Municipality, Mahasamund,

the petitioner was sent on deputation to the post of Commissioner, Municipal

Corporation, Raigarh, vide order dated 14-07-2011, passed by the State

Government. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was sent on deputation with

his consent.

However, the aforesaid order was sought to be amended by the State

Government vide another order dated 19-08-2014 which was challenged by the

petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.4360/2014. In that petition, notices were

issued and interim protection was granted in favour of the petitioner on

25-08-2014. In course of time, the State expressed that it was no longer willing

to execute the order dated 19-08-2014, the petition was disposed off vide order

dated 18-09-2015.

5.

However, another order was passed by the State Government on

15-10-2015, by which, the petitioner was again transferred to the Municipal

Council, Kirandul. This order was again challenged by the petitioner by filing

W.P.(S)No.3867/2015. The effect and operation of order dated 15-10-2015 was

stayed by this Court vide order dated 30-10-2015. Later on, order dated

15-10-2015 was cancelled by the State Government vide order dated

30-12-2015. This eventuality led to final disposal of the second writ petition also.

3

6.

The State appearing to be determined to change the posting of the

petitioner from Raigarh to elsewhere, issued the impugned order dated

12-02-2016, sending the petitioner on deputation to the post of Joint Director,

Urban Administration and Development in the Directorate, Urban Administration

at Raipur. Aggrieved by this order also, the petitioner has filed this petition.

7.

The sole and pointed submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is

that the present exercise of sending the petitioner on deputation to another

different assignment as Joint Director, Urban Administration and Development

in the Directorate, Urban Administration at Raipur, also amounts to deputatio