V LAKSHMANAMOORTHY Vs. G PANNEERSELVAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of Mr. K.M. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. Rajasekar, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel representing the respondents and have perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioners in W.P. Nos. 3541 and 3555 of 2001 were the applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal [for short, '[CAT'] in O.A. Nos. 1181 and 1179 of 1999 respectively. THEse two petitioners along with several other persons filed Original Applications before the CAT seeking to set aside the orders of the respondent including the order dated 29.10.1999 wherein and by which the petitioner in W.P. No. 3541 of 2001 was posted at Kudamalai and the petitioner in W.P. No. 3555 of 2001 was posted at Paithur. THE CAT held that their posting was done only as a deputation and they cannot seek for absorption in the Department where they worked. THE CAT also held that an employee on deputation is always liable to be repatriated to the parent Department and there is no vested right of absorption in the other Department. THE CAT also rejected the plea put forward by the petitioners that they had legitimate expectation of getting absorbed in the Department where their services were sent on deputation. THE CAT, after relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kunal Nanda v. Union of India [2000 (5) SCC 362], held that a deputations cannot assert and succeed any claim for absorption of the post in which he was sent on deputation. Since their services were repatriated to parent Department, viz., Postal Department, and by way of a supplementary affidavit, the Department asked for some time for absorption and six months time was granted to absorb all the ED messengers including the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitions have been preferred.

(3.) IN view of the above, the writ petitions fail and accordingly, stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.