VISHNU SHANKAR PRASAD, SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS Vs. MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYSTHROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEPUTATION is not a right vested in an employee. The same is a tri -partite agreement between the lending and borrowing departments as also the employee concerned. The applicant in the present Original Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is not seeking deputation with National Highways Authority of India (hereinafter to be referred as NHAI) based upon any vested right in him. He is claiming deputation, as per the case set up by him, on legal and valid orders already having been passed on that behalf, and Shri Brahm Dutt, Secretary; Shri P.K. Tripathi, Joint Secretary; and Shri S.K. Dash, Joint Secretary, Department of Road Transport & Highways, arrayed personally as respondents 2, 3, 4 and 5, having put in all spokes in not relieving him despite the orders as mentioned above, on wholly illegal and unfounded grounds, so pressed and canvassed not only before the competent authority, i.e., the Minister concerned, but before this Tribunal as well. The applicant alleges that the said respondents have even gone to the extent of distorting the facts in their effort to mislead the Minister as also this Tribunal in their endeavour so as not to relieve him come what may. The charge of the applicant is also of highly discriminatory attitude of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents in their effort to stall his deputation on the only ground that he has not completed the cooling off period entitling him for further deputation. In that connection, it is urged that the respondents have not only allowed others similarly situate officers to go on deputation without completing the cooling off period, but the same was done without seeking any exemption for the same. Whether the charge of the applicant, voluminously detailed in the Application and vehemently urged before this Tribunal, is correct, is the question. The facts may speak and, therefore, it would be necessary to take stock of the same.

(2.) GOVERNMENT of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highways, Department of Road Transport & Highways issued an order dated 24.09.2008 with the approval of competent authority reciting therein that the services of the applicant, who is Superintending Engineer (Civil) along with one Sh. S.S. Nahar, who is also Superintendent Engineer (Civil) in Central Engineering Service (Roads) Group 'A' would be placed at the disposal of National Highways Authority of India for appointment as Chief General Manager (hereinafter referred to as 'CGM') on deputation on mandatory basis with immediate effect and until further orders on normal terms and conditions of deputation. Despite the order, referred to above, till such time the applicant had filed this Original Application or even till date, the applicant has not been relieved to join the post of CGM in NHAI on deputation. Applicant, in this Original Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, takes serious exceptions to the attitude of respondents, arrayed in person, stating the same to be mala fide in creating all bottlenecks on wholly illegal and unjustified grounds so as not to give effect to the lawful order passed deputing the applicant to take over as CGM in NHAI. The applicant, in the facts and circumstances enumerated hereinafter, craves indulgence of this Tribunal to direct the respondents to forthwith relieve him enabling him to join NHAI as CGM on deputation basis. The respondents, on the other hand, would seek dismissal of this Application primarily on the ground that prior to order dated 24.09.2008, the applicant was on deputation and after the last period of deputation was over, he had not served the parent department for a period of three years, called the 'Cooling Off' period, which is necessarily required and, therefore, he has rightly not been relieved.

(3.) IN order to substantiate mala fide on the part of respondents, named above, the Applicant refers to various notings made on the file, which read as follows: