Bhupendra Kumar Wadekar vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors

Prashant Kumar Mishra, ACJ

In this Intra Court Appeal challenge is thrown to the order passed by the learned Single Judge which has refused to interfere in the transfer order of the appellant who was earlier deputed to work as CMO, Dondilohara and has been brought back to his original place at Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon.

At the outset, it would be apt to mention that in the first order the appellant was not transferred as such but was sent on deputation and by the second order the deputation has been withdrawn repatriating him to his parent post organisation i.e. Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon.

It is well settled that deputation is just a transfer of a Government employee from one department to another. So in its very nature, the tenure of a deputationist is a precarious one. Of course, in some cases, it may be for a fixed term, but even then it is implicit that a deputationist can always be repatriated to his parent department. It is, thus, manifest that a deputationist has no right to the post held by him in the borrowing department and he can always be repatriated to his parent department. This right of the borrowing department to repatriate the employee and for that matter right of the lending department to recall their own employee sent on deputation, is well recognized in service jurisprudence.

The Supreme Court in 'Union of India vs. V. Ramakrishnan and Ors.', (2005) 8 SCC 394 held that ordinarily, a deputationist has no legal right to continue on the post.

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 or get absorbed in the department to which he had gone on deputation. The rights of deputationist are very fortitious and he can be directed to come back to the parent department at any point of time without assigning any reason.

The appellant has not produced any material before this Court to show that he has a right to continue on deputation. In view of the decisions referred to hereinabove, it is crystal clear that a deputationist has no legally enforceable right to continue on deputation, this Court is not inclined to accept the appellant's prayer for a direction to the respondent to allow the appellant to continue on deputation.

Even otherwise we are in full sync with the observation made by the learned Single Judge that the two places are at a short distance, therefore, there is no scope for interference.

In the light of the aforesaid discussion and the well settled principles of law, there is no substance in this Intra Court Appeal which fails and is hereby dismissed.