Chandi Prasad Raturi vs Public Service Tribunal Uttarakhand and Others

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—One Sabri Lal was working as a Chainman in the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Irrigation II) Government of Uttar Pradesh. He was deputed to the Gas Authority of India. It is settled law that a deputationist retains his lien in the post he was working immediately before he was deputed. In view of the said deputation, the post of Chainman held by Sabri Lal became vacant for a temporary period. That temporary vacancy was supplied by the Petitioner on 7th February, 1995. In the appointment letter, it was indicated that the said temporary vacancy has cropped up in view of deputation of Sabri Lal. It was also indicated that no sooner Sabri Lal will return from his deputed post, he will rejoin the post in question and the appointment of the Petitioner will come to an end. On 3rd July, 1998, for no just reason, the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal issued an order and thereby held out that when Shri Sabri Lal will return from his deputed post, he will work as Waterman-cum-Chowkidar in the office of Special Land Acquisition Officer (Joint Office), Narendranagar. In the said order, it was also indicated that the Petitioner will continue to work in the post of Chainman. This was a wishful thinking on the part of the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal inasmuch as Sabri Lal had his lien in the post of Chainman of the office of Special Land Acquisition Officer/Collector. Be that as it may, no sooner Sabri Lal returned from his deputed post he was given the post of Chainman in the office of Special Land Acquisition Officer /Collector and simultaneously by an order dated 13th August, 1999 temporary engagement of the Petitioner in deputation vacancy was put to an end. This order was the subject matter of a writ petition filed before the Hon''ble High Court, Allahabad when an interim order was passed. Later on, the writ petition was transferred to this Court when this Court relegated the Petitioner to the Public Services Tribunal. Petitioner, thus, went before the Tribunal and lost there. Being aggrieved thereby the present writ petition has been filed.

At the time of joining the said deputation vacancy, Petitioner was well aware that the vacancy is not a permanent vacancy. He was also aware that the vacancy will come to an end no sooner the person deputed will return. He knew that his service will not continue even one day after the deputationist returns. The Petitioner, therefore, had no right under the law to remain in that post in question. A person, who has, with his eyes wide open, accepted the terms of a contract, cannot act in violation thereof.

The writ petition is utterly frivolous and the same is dismissed.