N.S. RAGHAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant two Original Applications have been heard together and are being decided by a common order, the applicant, subject matter and the pleadings being the same, except that they slightly differ in reliefs. The OA No. 4266/2012 is directed against the order of repatriation of the applicant from the respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3 vide order dated 10.12.2012. On the other hand, in OA No. 4014/2013, the applicant is aggrieved by his non -absorption in the respondent organization despite the fact that he is in 5th year of deputation.

(2.) AS stated earlier, both these two OAs differ only in terms of the reliefs being sought. In OA No. 4266/2012, the applicant has sought quashing of repatriation order dated 10.12.2012 and declaration that he is entitled to continue in service of the borrowing department for the unexpired period of deputation of the 4th year, while in OA No. 4014/2013, he seeks consideration of his claim for absorption in the respondent organization. For the sake of greater clarity, both sets of reliefs are being extracted hereunder: -

(3.) THE respondents have submitted a counter affidavit admitting the initial parts of the facts upto the grant of NOC to the applicant. However, as per provision 8.2 of the OM dated 17.06.2010, the approval of the Secretary of respondent No. 1 had to be sought for extension which was declined on the ground that there was no provision for extension of deputation tenure beyond three years in the recruitment rules. Subsequently, the respondent No. 3 withdrew its NOC vide letter dated 09.11.2012. The sanctioned term of deputation of the applicant had expired on 06.09.2012 and the applicant continued on deputation in the borrowing department which is content with adverse service implication. The respondents, therefore, issued order of repatriation on 04.12.2012, a copy of which had also been marked to the applicant through his controlling officer. It is the submission of the respondents that they have acted strictly as per the recruitment rules, 2011 which do not provide for absorption or continuation beyond the sanctioned term of deputation, and, therefore, the order of repatriation dated 04.12.2012 does not constitute any premature repatriation or curtailment of the applicants rights.