# Ram Adhar Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 137
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-04
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 2941 of 2020
- **Bench:** Saurabh Lavania
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-adhar-singh-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45480
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Service Law- Repatriation - Uttar Pradesh
Absorption of Government Servants in Public
Undertakings Rules, 1984 - Petitioner claims that he
cannot be repatriated on the basis of allegations
made against him. The Court held that, it is settled
principle that deputationist can always and any time
be repatriated to his parent department to serve on
his substantive post, at the instance of either of the
departments and there is no vested right in such
person to continue for long on deputation. (Para 22)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

2 All. Ram Adhar Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
137
appropriate orders but following due
procedure of law.

14. In view of the aforesaid terms,
both the writ petitions bearing Nos.
2713(S/S) of 2020 and 2748 (S/S) of 2020
are allowed.

15. No order as to costs.
----------
(2020)02ILR A137

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Service Single No. 2941 of 2020

Ram Adhar Singh Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rakesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Shishir Jain

A. Service Law- Repatriation - Uttar Pradesh
Absorption of Government Servants in Public
Undertakings Rules, 1984 - Petitioner claims that he
cannot be repatriated on the basis of allegations
made against him. The Court held that, it is settled
principle that deputationist can always and any time
be repatriated to his parent department to serve on
his substantive post, at the instance of either of the
departments and there is no vested right in such
person to continue for long on deputation. (Para 22)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Kunal Nanda Vs. Union of India and another,
(2000) 5 SCC 362 (Para 8, 9)

2. Ravindra Singh Vs. State of U.P., [2015 (33)
LCD 1915] (Para 9)

3. Ratilal B. Soni and others Vs. State of Gujrat
and others, 1990 (Supp) SCC 243 (Para 10)

4. Prasar Bharti and others Vs. Amarjeet Singh
and others, (2007) 2 SCALE 486 (Para 11)

5. State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Kumar Saxena, AIR
1998 SC 925 (Para 11)

6. Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and
others, JT 2007 (12) SC 467 (Para 11)

7. U.P. Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh &
others Vs. Daya Ram Saroj and others, (2007)
2 SCC 138 (Para 12)

8. Gauri Shanker Vs. State of U.P. and others,
2005 (1) AWL 426 (Para 13)

9. Dr. Seema Kundra Vs. State of U.P., 2003
(1) AWL 520 (Para 14)

10. Devi Kumar Vs. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Parishad, 2004 (3) UPLBEC 2318 (Para 15)

11. Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and
others, Writ Petition No. 52527 of 2005,
decided on 03.08.2005 (Para 16)

Present petition challenges order of
repatriation dated 04.12.2019.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,
J.)

1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Alok
Sharma, learned Addl. Chief Standing
Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Sri
Shishir Jain, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos. 2 to 6.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, a challenge has been made to the
order dated 04.12.2019, whereby the
petitioner has been repatriated to his parent
138 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Department i.e. Public Works Department
of State of Arunachal Pradesh.

3. It is stated that the petitioner was
sent on deputation from the Public Works
Department of State of Arunachal Pradesh
to U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Ltd. (in short
"Nigam") vide order dated 01.07.2014 and
pursuant to the same, he was permitted to
join the duties of Nigam on 17.07.2014. In
this regard, reliance has been placed on the
letter dated 18.07.2014 (Annexure No. 3 to
the writ petition).

4. It is further stated that during the
period of deputation in Nigam, the
petitioner
performed
his
duties
and
responsibilities with full satisfaction of the
Authorities concerned. However, on the
basis
of
the
enquiry
report
dated
30.11.2019,
the
petitioner
has
been
repatriated vide order impugned dated
04.12.2019. So far as the case of the
petitioner is concerned, the enquiry report
is vague. The petitioner is not responsible
for the allegations made in the report dated
30.11.2019, which relate to Inter Unit
Transaction.
In
this
regard,
learned
counsel for the petitioner placed reliance
on
Para
No.
246
of
the
Basic
Responsibilities of Staff and Officers,
which provides basic duties of subEngineers of the Nigam.

5. It is also stated that in the facts of
the case, the order of repatriation dated
04.12.2019,
mentioning
therein
the
allegations related to embezzlement is
unsustainable in law and is liable to be
interfered with by this Court.

6. Per contra, Sri Shishir Jain,
learned counsel appearing for the Nigam
submitted that admittedly the petitioner
has discharged the duties in Nigam on
deputation and deputationist has no right
to continue on the said post.

7. It is also stated that the petitioner
was sent on deputation vide order dated
01.07.2014 and he has completed 5 year
on deputation in the Nigam and as per the
Rules known as The Uttar Pradesh
Absorption of Government Servants in
Public Undertakings Rules, 1984 (in short
"Rules, 1984"), a deputationist cannot
continue after expiry of 5 years. The
relevant portion of the Rules, 1984 is
quoted hereunder:-

"4. Time limit for deputation: No
Government servant shall ordinarily be
permitted to remain on deputation for a
period exceeding five years."

8. It is also stated that a deputationist
can be repatriated, if his/her integrity is
found doubtful and in the instant case, the
integrity of the petitioner has been found
doubtful and for the said reason, the
respondent
No.
6/Additional
Project
Manager, Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman
Nigam
Limited,
Bahraich
has
recommended for deputation of petitioner
and initiation of disciplinary proceedings
against the petitioner. In this regard,
reliance has been placed on letter of
respondent
No.
6
dated
02.12.2019
(Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition). The
petitioner has been repatriated keeping in
view the fact that certain allegations have
been made against him in the enquiry
report. The integrity of the petitioner,
prima facie, is doubtful, so he has been
repatriated. The order of repatriation is
justified in the facts of the case. In this
regard, reliance has been placed on the
judgment of the Apex passed in the Case
of Kunal Nanda v. Union of India and
Another reported in (2000) 5 SCC 362.
2 All. Ram Adhar Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
139

"5. Heard the learned counsel
for the appellant and Shri R.N. Trivedi,
learned Additional Solicitor General. The
least said about the conduct of the
appellant,
the
better
for
him.
The
appellant,
indisputably,
is
only
a
deputationist so far as CBI is concerned
and his parent Department is only CRPF
and
his
substantive
position
and
appointment is only in that Department
and ordinarily a deputation, as per
governing Rules, cannot last for a period
more than five years. The frivolous claim
that a person like him need not be a
graduate for absorption and appointment
in CBI, apart, the appellant appears to
have rendered himself unreliable by
making, to put it in the most mild terms, an
incorrect representation of his basic
educational qualification to be a graduate
while factually it is not so, and this one
ground, strongly urged is enough to nonsuit him. This itself will be sufficient to
disentitle him to even continue in CBI any
longer. The Screening Committee which
appears to have initially recommended for
absorption also seems to have proceeded
on
the
basis
of
the
erroneous
representation of the appellant of his basic
educational qualification and the copy of
the proceedings made available disclose
this serious lapse and consequently no
advantage can be claimed on the basis of
the recommendation, made on a mistaken
view of the facts more so, when such
mistake was the making of the appellant
himself. This assertion of the respondent
CBI
Department
was
specific
and
reiterated in unmistakable terms from the
beginning before the Tribunal [vide paras
4(h) and 5 of the reply] and thereafter
before the High Court in the counter filed
[vide para 3(e)] and finally before this
Court also [vide para 5(c) of the counter
filed on behalf of the respondent].
Throughout, the response of the appellant
to those assertions at various stages was
evasive and nebulous and neither direct
nor specific in refutation of the facts in
particular. Being an appeal under Article
136 of the Constitution of India, this Court
will be justified in even rejecting this
appeal, on this ground alone.

6. On the legal submissions also
made there are no merits whatsoever. It is
well settled that unless the claim of the
deputationist for a 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 v. M.D.,
U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. [(1999) 8
SCC 381 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 60] is
inappropriate since the consideration
therein was in the light of the 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 needs
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 be
140 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

9. This Court in the case of Ravindra
Singh v. State of U.P. reported in [2015
(33) LCD 1915] after considering the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the
case of Kunal Nanda (supra) and various
other judgments on the issue in question
observed that no person has right to
continue in a foreign service and it is
always open to the competent Authority to
repatriate the employee concerned to his
parent department.

10. In Ratilal B. Soni and others. Vs.
State of Gujrat and others, 1990 (Supp)
SCC 243, the Court held :-

"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....."

11. The concept of transfer and
deputation has been explained by the Apex
Court in Prasar Bharti and others Vs. Amarjeet
Singh and others 2007 (2) SCALE 486 and it
has been held that a person sent in a cadre
outside his substantive cadre has no right to
continue in foreign cadre and can be
repatriated to his parent cadre at any point of
time without assigning any reason. Further, the
authorities cannot be required to assign any
reason, whatsoever, in an order of transfer and
such power of transfer cannot be fettered by
requiring them to record reason. Which
employee should be posted where is absolutely
within the domain of the authority concerned
and unless it is shown that a order of
transfer/repatriation is contrary to the statutory
rules or is otherwise mala fide or has been
passed by the incompetent authority, only then
the Court may interfere and not otherwise.
(See: State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Kumar Saxena
AIR 1998 SC 925, Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs.
State of U.P. & others JT 2007 (12) SC 467).

12. The Apex Court in U.P. Gram
Panchayat Adhikari Sangh & Ors. Vs.
Daya Ram Saroj & Ors. (2007) 2 SCC 138
held that the persons having been sent to
deputation have no right to continue and
they can be repatriated to their parent
department.

13. A Division Bench of this Court
also in Gauri Shanker Vs. State of U.P.
and Others 2005 (1) AWL 426 held as
under:

".........A deputationist has no
right to remain on deputation and he can
be sent back to his Parent Department at
any time......."

14. The same view has been followed by
another Division Bench of this court in the
case of Dr. Seema Kundra Vs. State of U.P.
2003 (1) AWL 520.

15. In Devi Kumar Vs. Rajya Krishi
Utpadan Mandi Parishad 2004 (3) UPLBC
2318, this court observed as under:

".........The period of deputation
originally fixed can be cut short, if considering
necessary, a deputationist has no right to
continue in the deputation post........."

16. This court in Ashok Kumar
Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Others, writ
petition no 52527 of 2005, decided on 3rd
August 2005, held:
2 All. Ram Adhar Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
141

".........It is well settled that a
deputationist has no right to remain on
deputation and he can be sent back to his
Parent Department at any time........"

17. Heard the submissions advanced
by learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.

18. The admitted facts of the present
case are to the effect that the petitioner
was sent on deputation on 01.07.2014 and
he joined the post in issue in the Nigam on
17.07.2014 and till passing of the order
impugned dated 04.12.2019, he continued
on the said post. The Rule quoted above
specifically provides the term of the
deputationist on deputation, according to
which ordinarily a deputationist can serve
only upto 5 years and not beyond that
period.

19. It also appears from the record
that after taking into consideration the
contents of enquiry report/letter dated
30.11.2019 of respondent No. 5/General
Manager, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam
Limited, Ayodhya Region, Ayodhya and
the
letter
dated
02.12.2019
of
the
respondent No. 6, whereby repatriation of
the petitioner has been recommended, the
petitioner has been repatriated to his parent
department.
Initiation
of
disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner has also
been recommended.

20. In nutshell, the case of the
petitioner is that he is a deputationist and
he cannot be repatriated on the basis of the
allegations
made
against
him.
Accordingly, he may be allowed to
continue on deputation.

21. No rule or pronouncement either
of this Court or the Apex Court has been
placed before this Court in support of right
to continue as deputationist in Nigam.

22. In regard to right of a
deputationist, now it is settled principle
that a deputationist can always and any
time
be
repatriated
to
his
parent
department to serve in his substantive
position, in other words on his substantive
post, at the instance of either of the
departments and there is no vested right in
such person to continue for long on
deputation in the department, in which he
had gone on deputation.

23. Keeping in view the aforesaid
admitted position as well as the settled
legal position with regard to right of
deputationist, this Court is of the view that
the order impugned dated 04.12.2019 is
not liable to interfered with.

24. For the foregoing reasons, the
writ petition lacks merit. Accordingly, it is
dismissed.

25. At this stage, learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that the salary of
four months has not been paid to the
petitioner.

26. In this regard, Sri Shishir Jain,
learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2
to 6 has stated before this Court that the
salary of the period served by the
petitioner would be released in his favour
within 15 days, if there is no other legal
impediment.
----------
(2020)02ILR A141

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.01.2020

BEFORE