AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Jagannathan, J.—This petition is disposed of finally after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties.
The grievance of the Petitioner is that he was on deputation to work at 3rd Respondent NCTE at Bangalore from parent department and the deputation period was extended from time to time by giving one year extension. On completion of his last term which was to end on 3-9-2010, he was relieved by the NOTE, Bangalore, to report back at the parent department at New Delhi. However, communication was received from the parent department as per Annexure-E on 7-10-2010 to the effect that the deputation of the Petitioner was extended for a further period of one year beyond 3-9-2010. Therefore, Petitioner''s counsel submits that since the term of deputation has been extended by one more year, Petitioner could net have been relieved at all as per letter dated 1-9-2010. Under these circumstances, the Petitioner prays for quashing of the relieving order produced at Annexure-F.
The submission of learned Counsel for Respondents is that along with objections, Respondents have produced certain documents and the same would show that Petitioner was relieved on 3-9-2010 with a direction to report at CS Division, New Delhi. Subsequently, Petitioner was also relieved on 3-9-2010 forenoon. He was directed to report at New Delhi as per Annexure-R4. Petitioner has also given his application for sanction of TA which amounts to Rs. 94,360/- Under these circumstances, the Petitioner has no other go than to report at the parent department at New Delhi.
Having heard both sides and on perusal of the material placed on record, including the objections filed by the Respondents and the documents produced along with the application filed for vacating stay, there appears to be communication gap between the deputation department and the parent department, which is evident from Annexure-E dated 7-9-2010, It mentions that the deputation shall continue or extended for one more year beyond 3-9-2010. Thus, it is clear that even before the said communication was received by the deputation department, Petitioner was relieved without waiting for such communication from the parent department Under these circumstances, notwithstanding the Petitioner is relieved on 3-9-2010, in view of extension of deputation granted to him to continue for one more year, the Petitioner''s prayer for quashing of the relieving order at Annexure-F has to be granted.
AS far as T.A sought for by the Petitioner is concerned, if the amount is not paid to him, question of paying the same does not arise as he has to continue to work on deputation at Bangalore. If the T.A is already paid, Respondents are at liberty to recover the same from the Petitioner.
Writ Petition stands allowed in the above terms. Petitioner shall continue to work at Bangalore in view of the extension of deputation granted by the parent department.