A deputed employee can be repatriated back to his home department at any time: High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
A government employee who has been deputed to another department does not have the vested right to continue in the deputed department for as long as he likes and his employers have the right to repatriate him back to the home department whenever they please. This was held in the judgement passed by a single member bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir consisting of Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey in the case of Mushtaq Ahmad Bhat v Jammu and Kashmir [WP(C) No. 618/2021] pronounced on the 24th of August 2021. The petitioner, Mushtaq Ahmad Bhat was a government employee of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. He had been deputed to a post at the J&amp;K Cement industry which comes under the Jammu and Kashmir Industries limited. The petitioner stated that he rose to a high level at his deputed post due to his dedication and perseverance. However his dreams were shattered when Jammu and Kashmir Industries Limited which used to make huge profits began incurring huge losses leading to it being declared a sick industry. As a result of this numerous staff members from the Jammu and Kashmir Industries Limited were adjusted or deployed in other Government Departments so as to reduce the JKIL’s expenditure on account of salary for these employees. The petitioner is one of these employees that were repatriated and he filed the present petition impugning the order of repatriation. The government took up the matter with the Industries and Commerce Department and deployed the surplus staff in other departments only after obtaining the requite ‘No Objection’ from the Industries and Commerce Department. In the light the, the respondents pointed out that their action was completely legal and followed all necessary steps of procedure. The petitioner however contended that despite having served the respondents and discharging his duties to the best satisfaction of his superiors, he was forced to leave his deputation and be repatriated back to his home department. It was observed by the Court that “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.”. This view was mirrored by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Kunal Nanda v Union of India &amp; Anr [AIR 2000 Supreme court 2076] and by the High Court of Jammu &amp; Kashmir in the case of Dr. Mohammad Deen v State of J&amp;K &amp; Others [KLJ 2000 640].
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Serial No.04 Regular Cause List WP(C) No. 618 2021 CM No. 1852 2021 c w WP(C) No. 248 2021 892 2021 Mushtaq Ahmad Bhat & Ors. Dated: 24th of August 2021. ….. Petitioner(s) Through: Mr S. A. Makroo Senior Advocate with Mr Danish Yousuf Advocate. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. Through: Mr Mohammad Rais ud Din Ganai Government Advocate. ….. Respondent(s) Hon’ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey Judge. WP(C) No. 618 2021 CM No. 1852 2021: Impugned herein this Petition is Government Order No. 255 JK(GAD) of 2021 dated 22nd of March 2021 whereby the Petitioners employees of Jammu and Kashmir Industries Limited have been repatriated to their parent Organization immediately. The Petitioners claim to have been employed in the J&K Cements Limited on various posts. It is stated that the Petitioners rose to their respective levels by the dint of their hard work and were aspiring to achieve higher levels in the JKI Limited but their dreams were shattered when the JKI Limited once a profit making Organization and premier in the field of WP(C) No. 618 2021 c w WP(C) No. 248 2021 Industries suffered losses thereby resulting in the Organization having been declared as a ‘Sick Industry’. Accordingly the list of surplus staff is stated to have been furnished to the General Administration Department of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir with the request that the said surplus staff be adjusted deployed in other Government Departments so that the expenditure on account of monthly establishment salary cost may be reduced. The Government in the General Administration Department as stated took up the matter with the Industries & Commerce Department and after obtaining the requisite ‘No Objection’ from them deployed the aforesaid surplus staff in various Government Departments. It is pleaded that the Petitioners are discharging their duties in the said Government Departments to the best satisfaction of their superior Officers however in terms of the Government Order No. 255 JK(GAD) of 2021 dated 22nd of March 2021 the Petitioners stand repatriated to their parent Organization. It is this Government Order that the Petitioners have called in question before this Court through the medium of the instant Petition. Heard the learned counsel for the parties perused the pleadings on record and considered the matter. It is admitted position that the Petitioners have been deputed to various Government Departments by the competent authority upon their declaration as surplus staff of the JKI Limited. There is also no dispute with regard to the implication of Article 52(C) of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations 1956 SR to the cases of the employees who have been deputed to various non Government Organizations including Corporations WP(C) No. 618 2021 c w WP(C) No. 248 2021 Companies Autonomous Bodies etc. but the Court has to only consider as to what is wrong with the decision of the Respondents in issuing the impugned Government Order thereby repatriating the Petitioners to their parent Organization Department. What is thus required to be seen in terms of the applicable laws governing the subject is as to whether the Petitioners have any right to claim continuation in the Government Departments where they have been deputed as ‘Deputationists’ or to put in other words whether the decision taken by the Respondents seeking repatriation of the Petitioners to their parent Department from the Departments where they have been deputed is illegal or unwarranted uncalled for. The aforesaid moot question can be answered by the application of the provisions of Article 52 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations 1956 itself which in no uncertain terms emphasize that the reversion of a ‘Deputationist’ can be at any stage either by the lending or the borrowing Department and that a ‘Deputationist’ has no vested right to remain on the cadre of the Department where deputed. There thus is nothing wrong in repatriation of the Petitioners on the cadre posts of their parent Department which they were holding in substantive position. Apart from the above provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations 1956 the law on the subject of repatriation reversion of ‘Deputationists’ is no more res integra. In ‘Kunal Nanda v. Union of India & Anr. AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2076 while dealing with the issue as involved herein this Petition Hon’ble the Supreme Court has observed as under: WP(C) No. 618 2021 c w WP(C) No. 248 2021 “… 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.” A similar view was also taken by a Coordinate Bench of our own High Court in the case of ‘Dr. Mohammad Deen v. State of JK & Ors. KLJ 2000 640’ while following the law laid down by the Apex Court of the country in Kunal Nanda’s caseNo. 248 2021 CM No. 892 2021: Although this Petition is shown to be clubbed with the aforementioned Petition however the Registry has not tagged the same with the file. Accordingly this Petition is directed to be delinked and listed separately on 17th of December 2021. Registry to place a copy of this Order on each file. Judge August 24th 2021 Whether the Order is reportable Yes No. Yes No. Whether the Order is speaking 