Tripura High Court holds that the Service Rule of Repatriating Deputionists at least Six Months Prior is Directory

Must Read

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA)....

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Follow us

In the case of Sri Nikhil Chandra vs State of Tripura & Ors, WP(C) No.309/2020,  Hon’ble Justice Mr Akhil Kureshi dealt with the challenge to an order repatriating deputationists to parent organization from government service.

Brief Facts

A memorandum was issued by the Under-Secretary of the Tripura Government to post 10 employees of TSCCF including the Petitioner in the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate. By an order dated 30.03.2006, the petitioner was posted in the office of Sub-Divisional Magistrate. These employees were released by TSCCF to join their duty, to which Petitioner reported on 31.03.2006 which was recorded through an order which states that their services will be treated as on deputation for 2 years. On 29.09.2009, Petitioner wrote a letter to Secretary, Revenue Department that he has not been issued a letter of appointment absorbing him as an employee of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, later on, 26.05.2020 an order that sought to repatriate the Petitioner to his previous organization was made since he was nearing superannuation. This order has been challenged through a writ petition.

Arguments Advanced

Respondents submitted that the government has clearly conveyed on 16.03.2006 that the staff may be withdrawn and posted to newly created Sub-Divisions of Teliamura and Santirbazar clearly conveying that petitioner was sent on deputation. Such change was allowed since the financial condition of TSCCF was weak and wanted to avoid the termination of employment. A deputationist has no right of absorption in the Government service. The Government policy does not permit any such absorption. Further, the Petitioner has been transferred to the parent organization in order to regulate his financial benefits as superannuation is nearing. The government had taken a decision on 21.05.2020 that employees of PSUs and Board cannot be to the government department and must be repatriated min 6 months prior to retirement.

Petitioners contended that the order on 30.03.2006 gives no indication that the Petitioner was sent on deputation and uses the words “appointed and posted” which was without any notice changed into the words deputation in the order of 02.06.2006. Rule 110 of Fundamental Rules does not envisage deputation to government service but only deputation from government service. Further, he has for several years discharged the duty under government service without any blemish and repatriation right before retirement is arbitrary. Since the initial order did not mention any deputation but appointment, the petitioner never consented to any deputation service.

Court’s Observation & Judgment

The court observed that the petitioner was sent on deputation as clearly mentioned in the order dated 02.06.2006 which also contains the terms of service. This clearly shows the intention of the government and was conveyed adequately to the Petitioner. Earlier orders had loosely used the words “appointed and posted”. Petitioner has not contended that he ever disputed him being appointed as a deputationist by order dated 02.06.2006 and therefore clearly understood his duties was of a deputationist and exercised them so. There is no requirement of statutory rule for an employee to be sent on deputation and there is nothing to suggest that consent of employees cannot be derived from circumstances. The provision of repatriation minimum 6 months prior to retirement is to be taken directory and not mandatory. Deputionist cannot have a right to permanent absorption and depends on the policy of the department. Hence the petition stands dismissed.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -