# Amit Kumar Gautam v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 640
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-26
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 3925 of 2025
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amit-kumar-gautam-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53741
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

for a period as prescribed in the order of
deputation.
(2) Jurisdiction of borrowing department to
repatriate the deputationist to the Parent
department,
when
the
appointment
on
deputation was made by an order of Governor.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Repatriation - Right to
remain on deputation for the prescribed
period - Entitlement - Appointment on
deputation was made for three years by
an
order
of
Governor
-
Order
of
repatriation was passed by the borrowing
department i.e. U.P. Project Corporation
Limited before three years - Competence
of borrowing department to repatriate the
petitioner to the parent department was
challenged - Legality of order, calling it a
punitive order was also challenged as it
was passed without enquiry:
Held : Petitioner can be repatriated before
maximum period prescribed in order to his
parent department. There is no bar that
borrowing department cannot pass an order of
repatriation - U.P. Project Corporation Limited is
a separate entity and its orders are not passed
on behalf of Governor and since impugned order
is passed by Prabandh Nideshak of said
Corporation, who is the appropriate authority,
therefore, there is no ground to challenge the
impugned order that it was passed by an Officer
beyond its jurisdiction - Impugned order is not
an stigmatic order. There may be some reasons
that working of petitioner was not found
suitable by respondents but it does not reflect
from impugned order. Even no inquiry was
initiated by Corporation except few notices were
issued. Therefore, there is no legal basis to
challenge the impugned order on a ground, it
being a stigmatic order. [Paras 12, 13 and 14]
(E-1)

Case Law Cited
Ashok Kumar Pandey and others v. State of U.P.
and others, 2005 SCC OnLine All 600; Ratilal B.
Soni and others v. State of Gujarat and others,
AIR 1990 SC 1132; Kunal Nanda v. Union of
India and another, AIR 2000 SC 2076; Union of
India and another v. S. N. Maity and another,
2015(4) SCC 164 - referred to.

List of Keywords
Deputation; Repatriation; Parent department;
Borrowing
department;
Selection
process;
Indefeasible right; Vested right; Jurisdiction.

Case Arising From
Order dated 20.02.2025 to repatriate the
petitioner to his parent department.

## Text

640 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2025) 8 ILRA 640
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 3925 of 2025

Amit Kumar Gautam ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sandeep Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Vishakha Pande, C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
(1) Entitlement of deputationist to remain as it
for a period as prescribed in the order of
deputation.
(2) Jurisdiction of borrowing department to
repatriate the deputationist to the Parent
department,
when
the
appointment
on
deputation was made by an order of Governor.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Repatriation - Right to
remain on deputation for the prescribed
period - Entitlement - Appointment on
deputation was made for three years by
an
order
of
Governor
-
Order
of
repatriation was passed by the borrowing
department i.e. U.P. Project Corporation
Limited before three years - Competence
of borrowing department to repatriate the
petitioner to the parent department was
challenged - Legality of order, calling it a
punitive order was also challenged as it
was passed without enquiry:
Held : Petitioner can be repatriated before
maximum period prescribed in order to his
parent department. There is no bar that
borrowing department cannot pass an order of
repatriation - U.P. Project Corporation Limited is
a separate entity and its orders are not passed
on behalf of Governor and since impugned order
is passed by Prabandh Nideshak of said
Corporation, who is the appropriate authority,
therefore, there is no ground to challenge the
impugned order that it was passed by an Officer
beyond its jurisdiction - Impugned order is not
an stigmatic order. There may be some reasons
that working of petitioner was not found
suitable by respondents but it does not reflect
from impugned order. Even no inquiry was
initiated by Corporation except few notices were
issued. Therefore, there is no legal basis to
challenge the impugned order on a ground, it
being a stigmatic order. [Paras 12, 13 and 14]
(E-1)

Case Law Cited
Ashok Kumar Pandey and others v. State of U.P.
and others, 2005 SCC OnLine All 600; Ratilal B.
Soni and others v. State of Gujarat and others,
AIR 1990 SC 1132; Kunal Nanda v. Union of
India and another, AIR 2000 SC 2076; Union of
India and another v. S. N. Maity and another,
2015(4) SCC 164 - referred to.

List of Keywords
Deputation; Repatriation; Parent department;
Borrowing
department;
Selection
process;
Indefeasible right; Vested right; Jurisdiction.

Case Arising From
Order dated 20.02.2025 to repatriate the
petitioner to his parent department.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Petitioner, an employee of Irrigation
and Water Resource Department, was sent
on deputation to U.P. Project Corporation
Limited vide order dated 07.02.2024. For
reference
said
order
is
reproduced
hereinafter:

"उत्तर प्रदेश शासन

कसंचाई एव जि संसािन अनुभाग-10

संख्या 23/2024/335/27-10001
(002)/5/2023-10
8 All. Amit Kumar Gautam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
641

िखनऊः कदनांक 07 फरवरी, 2024

कायाजिय ज्ञाप

तात्काकिक प्रभाव से कसंचाई एवं जि संसािन
कवभाग के यांकत्रक संवगज के श्री अकमत कुमार गौतम, नवप्रोन्नत
सहायक अकभयन्ता (यां०) को उत्तर प्रदेश प्रोजेक्ट कारपोरेशन
किकमटेड में प्रकतकनयुकक्त पर कनम्नकिकखत शतों के अिीन एतद्द्द्द्वारा
कनयुक्त/पदस्थाकपत ककये जाने की श्री राज्यपाि सहिज स्वीकृकत प्रदान
करते हैं:-

1. श्री अकमत कुमार गौतम, नवप्रोन्नत सहायक
अकभयन्ता (यां०) की प्रकतकनयुकक्त की अवकि 03 विज से अकिक
नहीं होगी। 03 विज की अवकि पूणज होने के उपरान्त श्री गौतम को
पैतृक कवभाग में तत्काि वापस कर कदया जायेगा।

2. श्री गौतम को प्रकतकनयुकक्त पर िेते समय उनके
मूि वेतन में ककसी भी प्रकार का पररवतजन नहीं ककया जाएगा।

3. प्रकतकनयुकक्त की अवकि में श्री गौतम को वही
वेतन और मंहगाई भत्ता प्राप्त होंगे जो उन्हें पैतृक कवभाग में रहते हुए
प्राप्त होते।

4. उक्त प्रकतकनयुकक्त के फिस्वरूप श्री अकमत कुमार
गौतम, नवप्रोन्नत सहायक अकभयन्ता (यां०) को कोई अकतररक्त
िाभ भत्ता देय नहीं होगा।"

2. Petitioner has worked at U.P.
Project Corporation Limited only for about
one year and by means of impugned order
dated 20.02.2025 he was repatriated to his
parent department. Said order is also
reproduced hereinafter:

"पत्र सं०: 8749/पी०सी०एि० /मुख्यािय/T19 कदनांक: 20/02/2025

कायाजिय ज्ञाप

उत्तर प्रदेश शासन कसंचाई एवं जि ससािन अनुभाग
10 के कायाजिय आदेश संख्या 23/2024/335/27-10001
(002)/5/2023-10 िखनऊ कदनांक 07.2.2024 एवं
वररष्ठ स्टाफ अकिकारी (ई-10) कायाजिय प्रमुख अकभयन्ता के पत्र
सं० जी-33/ई-10/नवप्रोन्नत स०अ० (यॉ०) /कायजभार ग्रहण
िखनऊ कदनांक 14.02.2024 द्वारा श्री अकमत कुमार गौतम,
सहायक अकभयन्ता (यॉकत्रक), कसंचाई एवं जि संसािन कवभाग को
यू०पी० प्रोजेक्ट्स कारपोरेशन कि० में प्रकतकनयुकक्त पर पदास्थाकपत
ककया गया था, कजसके अनुपािन में इनके द्वारा कदनांक
23.02.2024 के पूवाजन्ह में कायजभार ग्रहण ककया गया था, को
तत्काकिक प्रभाव से उनके पैतृक कवभाग कसंचाई एवं जि संशािन
कवभाग, उ० प्र० में एतद्वारा प्रत्यावकतजत ककया जाता है।

श्री अकमत कुमार गौतम, सहायक अकभयन्ता
(यॉकत्रक) / सहायक पररयोजना प्रबन्िक को कायजमुक्त करने से पूवज
यह सुकनकित कर किया जाय कक इनके कवरूद्ध कोई अकभिेख
/सी०यू०जी०/ टी०एण्ड पी० आकद अवशेि तो नहीं है।

यह आदेश तत्काि प्रभावी होंगे।"

3. Aforesaid order is impugned in
present case. Sri Sandeep Kumar, learned
counsel for petitioner, has made following
arguments:

(i) Petitioner was appointed on
deputation with U.P. Project Corporation
Limited by an order issued on behalf of
Governor of State for a period of three
years, therefore, any order to repatriate him
to his parent department could be passed
only by State Government on behalf of
Governor.

(ii) The borrowing department,
i.e., U.P. Project Corporation Limited has
no power to repatriate petitioner before the
fixed period of three years.

(iii) If the veil is lifted there are
certain allegations levelled against the
petitioner which are also reflected in
counter affidavit filed by respondents,
therefore, impugned order is punitive and
without any inquiry no such impugned
order can be passed.
642 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(iv) U.P. Project Corporation
Limited is still asking parent department to
send Officers on deputation, as such
borrowing department has still need of
Officers on deputation.

(v) He has placed heavy reliance
on a judgment passed by this Court in
Ashok Kumar Pandey and others vs.
State of U.P. and others, 2005 SCC
OnLine All 600.

4. Per contra, Ms. Vishakha Pandey,
learned counsel appearing for RespondentU.P.
Project
Corporation
Limited,
submitted that it is a case of transfer on
deputation
and
not
appointment
on
deputation, therefore, petitioner has no
indefeasible right to continue on deputation
for the period prescribed.

5. Learned counsel also submitted that
U.P. Project Corporation Limited is an
independent entity and can take decisions
in
terms
of
applicable
regulations.
Governor is not an authority to pass orders
for employees of U.P. Project Corporation
Limited,
therefore,
the
borrowing
department
can
pass
an
order
for
repatriation.

6.
She
further
submitted
that
impugned order is not stigmatic since
nothing adverse is mentioned therein
though it has not been denied that work of
petitioner was not satisfactory and except
issuing
certain
notices
to
him,
no
proceedings were initiated against him.

7. Learned counsel has placed reliance
on the judgments passed by Supreme Court
in the cases of Ratilal B. Soni and others vs.
State of Gujarat and others, AIR 1990 SC
1132 and Kunal Nanda vs. Union of India
and another, AIR 2000 SC 2076.

8. I have considered the above
submissions and perused the material on
record.

9. First issue before this Court to
consider is, whether petitioner has any right
to remain on deputation for the period
prescribed in order.

10. Undisputedly, it is not a case
where
petitioner
was
appointed
on
deputation after participating a selection
process. It was a simple order of
deputation. Therefore, in view of a
judgment passed by Supreme Court in
Union of India and another vs. S.N.
Maity and another, 2015(4) SCC 164 the
case of petitioner could not fall under
appointment on deputation and it may be a
case of only transfer on deputation.
Therefore, petitioner has no indefeasible
right and in that background it would be
relevant to reproduce following paragraphs
of S.N. Maity (supra):

"14. In the above backdrop, this
Court made a distinction between 'transfer
on
deputation'
and
'appointment
on
deputation' and proceeded to lay down
thus:

"14.
However,
the
aforesaid
principle cannot be made applicable in the
matter of appointment (recruitment) on
deputation. In such case, for appointment
on deputation in the services of the State or
organisation or State within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the
provisions of Article 14 and Article 16 are
to be followed. No person can be
discriminated nor is it open to the
appointing authority to act arbitrarily or to
pass any order in violation of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India. A person who
applies for appointment on deputation has
8 All. Amit Kumar Gautam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
643
an indefeasible right to be treated fairly
and equally and once such person is
selected and offered with the letter of
appointment on deputation, the same
cannot be cancelled except on the ground
of non-suitability or unsatisfactory work.

15. The present case is not a case
of transfer on deputation. It is a case of
appointment on deputation for which
advertisement was issued and after due
selection, the offer of appointment was
issued in favour of the appellant. In such
circumstances, it was not open for the
respondent to argue that the appellant has
no right to claim deputation and the
respondent cannot refuse to accept the
joining of most eligible selected candidate
except on ground of unsuitability or
unsatisfactory performance".

15. Eventually, taking note of the
communications, this Court directed as
follows:

"18. For the reasons aforesaid,
the impugned order of withdrawal of
appointment dated 11-3-2010 and the order
of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High
Court cannot be sustained and they are
accordingly set aside. As the post of
Director is vacant, in view of the
interim order of this Court dated 9-52011, we direct the 2nd respondent to
accept the joining of the appellant for
a period of one year on deputation
which is to be counted from the date of
his joining and other terms and
conditions of deputation will remain
same. North Gujarat University is
directed to relieve the appellant with
further direction to the 2nd respondent
to accept the joining of the appellant
within one week from the date of
reporting by the appellant."

11. In above background, the Court
also takes note of the judgments relied by
learned counsel for respondents in Ratilal
B. Soni (supra) and Kunal Nanda (supra)
wherein it was held that a deputationist has
no vested right and he can be repatriated to
his parent department at any time. Relevant
part of aforesaid judgments are reproduced
hereinafter:

Ratilal B. Soni (supra):

"5. The appellants being on
deputation they could be reverted to their
parent cadre at any time and they do not
get any right to be absorbed on the
deputation post. We see no infirmity in the
judgment of the High Court and as such we
dismiss the appeal. There shall be no order
as to costs."

Kunal Nanda (supra):

"6. On the legal submissions
made also there are no merits whatsoever.
It is well settled that unless the claim of the
deputationist for permanent absorption in
the department where he works on
deputation is based upon any statutory
Rule, Regulation or Order having the force
of law, a deputationist cannot assert and
succeed in any such claim for absorption.
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 reference to the decision
reported in Rameshwar Prasad vs M.D.,
U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. and
Others, 1999 (8) SCC 381 is inappropriate
644 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
since, the consideration therein was in the
light of statutory rules for absorption and
the scope of those rules. The claim that he
need not be a graduate for absorption and
being a service candidate, on completing
service of 10 years he is exempt from the
requirement of possessing a degree need
mention, only to be rejected. The stand of
the
respondent
department
that
the
absorption of a deputationist being one
against the direct quota, the possession of
basic educational qualification prescribed
for direct recruitment i.e., a degree is a
must and essential and that there could no
comparison of the claim of such a person
with one to be dealt with on promotion of a
candidate who is already in service in that
department is well merited and deserves to
be sustained and we see no infirmity
whatsoever in the said claim."

12. In view of above, considering the
nature of order of deputation, this Court is
of the opinion that petitioner can be
repatriated
before
maximum
period
prescribed
in
order
to
his
parent
department. There is no bar that borrowing
department cannot pass an order of
repatriation.

13. It is also not in dispute that U.P.
Project Corporation Limited is a separate
entity and its orders are not passed on
behalf of Governor and since impugned
order is passed by Prabandh Nideshak of
said Corporation, who is the appropriate
authority, therefore, there is no ground to
challenge the impugned order that it was
passed
by
an
Officer
beyond
its
jurisdiction.

14. Impugned order is not an stigmatic
order. There may be some reasons that
working of petitioner was not found
suitable by respondents but it does not
reflect from impugned order. Even no
inquiry was initiated by Corporation except
few notices were issued. Therefore, there is
no legal basis to challenge the impugned
order on a ground, it being a stigmatic
order.

15. It may be a case that RespondentU.P. Project Corporation Limited is still
require Officers from parent department of
petitioner, on deputation but petitioner has
no indefeasible right to consider for
deputation. Therefore, the Court is of the
opinion that all argument raised on behalf
of petitioner are not legally sustainable and
in view of Kunal Nanda (supra), Ratilal
B. Soni (supra) and S.N. Maity (supra),
the petitioner can be repatriated to his
parent department at any time and even
before prescribed period came to an end.

16. The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed.

17. In the interest of justice, it would
be necessary to observe that only on ground
that petitioner is repatriated before expiry
of maximum period, he would not be
disentitled for consideration of fresh
deputation, if circumstances so warrant.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 644
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 4120 of 2018

Mool Chandra Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner: