IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.50594/2017 (S-TR) Between:
Soumendu Paul, Son of Hrishikesh Paul, Aged about 39 years, Residing at, 6/2, Anand Pillana, Sugata Road, Hunsmaranahalli, Bengaluru – 562 157.
Address for Service:
Fox Mandal & Associates Advocates and Solicitors 6/12, ‘FM House’ Primrose Road, Gurappa Avenue, Bengaluru – 560 025. … Petitioner (By Sri Shyam Sundar H., Advocate) And:
1. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi – 110 001.
2. The Joint Deputy Director, Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi – 110 001. … Respondents (By Sri C. Shashikanth, ASG for R1 & R2) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India, praying to quash the order of repatriation as per order dated 10.08.2017 passed by R-2 as per Annexure-A and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 10.08.2017 passed by the respondent no.2, whereby the petitioner’s service was returned to the parent department by way of repatriation with a direction to report for duty to his parent department.
2. The petitioner contends that he was deputed as per the order at Annexure-‘C’ for a period of three years on 20.10.2014. On completion of period of three years, Annexure-‘A’ has been passed. The primary contention of the petitioner is that his consent was obtained for continuing on deputation for a further period and hence, not extending his period of service on deputation was illegal. It is further contended that repatriation was in the middle of the academic year. The petitioner further contends that other persons who are similarly placed have been extended the benefit of extension of deputation.
3. It is to be noticed that the order at Annexure-‘C’ under which the petitioner came to be deputed specifically provides for deputation for a period of three years. The impugned order at Annexure-‘A’ has been passed after the lapse of said three years. The petitioner is on deputation. He does not have a vested right to continue on deputation and if the authority under whom he continues to work desires to send back his services by repatriation, the petitioner does not have any legal or vested right to resist such repatriation. Further noting the nature of work in the borrowing department, it would be wholly inappropriate to direct the borrowing department to continue the petitioner which would amount to an unreasonable imposition upon the borrowing department.
4. However, taking note of the contention of the petitioner that his repatriation would result in relocation possibly, outside the State, the petitioner may be permitted to the continue in the same post till the end of April’2020.
5. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE Np/-