From the facts stated in the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Clerk in the Nagar Palika Parishad in the year 1978. Certain posts of Project Officers and Assistant Project Officers were advertised by the State Urban Development Agency (hereinafter referred to as SUDA) in the year 1996 to be filled up by way of deputation. The petitioner, among others applied and he was given appointed on 24.08.1996 on the post of Assistant Project Officer in SUDA on deputation. By the order dated 19.07.2003 impugned in the writ petition, the petitioner is sought to be repatriated to his parent department, namely, the Nagar Palika Parishad.
I have heard Sri Zubair Hasan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Raj Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no.3 & 4 and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 & 2.
The petitioner has also filed an amendment application seeking amendment to his writ petition to the effect that he may be given parity with one Indra Pal Kannaujia, who was appointed in Nagar Nigam, Kanpur and thereafter sent for deputation to SUDA and was subsequently absorbed in SUDA and therefore, by way of amendment application relief has been sought that the petitioner may also be considered for absorption in SUDA.
Sri Vivek Raj Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has filed a Misc. application supported by an affidavit annexing therein copy of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court passed in Special Appeal No.46 of 2011, Jai Prakash Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Others and other connected special appeals. Subject matter of the special appeal is identical to that of the present writ petition, namely that the order of repatriation has been passed on the directions issued by the State Government by the SUDA. The Division Bench vide its judgment dated 11.01.2012 has settled the controversy by laying down directions in the matter of employees working on deputation in SUDA who belong to such departments, companies or public sector undertakings etc., which have gone sick or are on the verge of closure and has directed that such employees also need protection as given to the employees working in UPTRON, as their repatriation to their parent departments which are sick would also lead to termination or throwing them out of service. In the said judgment some of the employees were also from the Nagar Palika Parishad and Nagar Nigam and in their case the Division Bench has held that those who are on deputation from departments, companies, public sector undertakings etc. which are healthy departments i.e. they are not sick like Nagar Nigam, Nagar Palika Parishad etc. have no right to continue in SUDA, they being deputationists and their period of deputation having come to an end long before. Such employees were given 30 days' time to report to their parent departments. Relevant paragraph of the judgment of the Division Bench with regard to employees of the Nagar Palika Parishad, who were on deputation in the SUDA as in the case of the present petitioner reads as follows:
"In regard to the employees, who are on deputation from such departments, companies, public sector undertakings etc., which are healthy departments i.e. they are not sick, like Nagar Nigam, Nagar Palika Parishad etc., have no right to continue in SUDA, they being deputationists and their period of deputation having come to an end long before. Such employees are also given thirty days' time to report to their parent departments."
In this view of the matter since the Division Bench has specifically held that the employees of the Nagar Nigam, Nagar Palika Parisha and other departments which are not sick departments their employees who are on deputation in SUDA had no right to claim absorption and should be repatriated and 30 days' time was granted to such employees to report to their parent departments.
The petitioner admittedly was an employee of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Jhansi and was working on deputation on the post of Assistant Project Officer in SUDA, therefore, in the light of the directions given by the Division Bench in the case of Jai Prakash Mishra (supra) the petitioner also must report to his parent department.
Therefore, in view of the directions given by the Division Bench this writ petition deserves to be dismissed and the petitioner must report to his parent department, namely, the Nagar Palika Parishad, Jhansi.
This writ petition is therefore dismissed as no relief can be granted to the petitioner his rights having already been in law by the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Jai Prakash Mishra (supra).
This Court, however, gives the petitioner 30 days' time from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order to report to his parent department.
The amendment application is also rejected.
Order Date :- 5.8.2014 N Tiwari