MANOJ SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has challenged the order dated 14/06/2013, whereby he has been repatriated to his parent department (District Co-operative and Rural Development Bank) from the borrowing department (M.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board).

(2.) SHRI D. S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was taken on deputation and rendered his services with the borrowing department with utmost honesty and sincerity. No objection certificate dated 06.06.2013 Annexure (P/8) was issued whereby the parent department expressed its no objection if the petitioner continues in deputation and is even absorbed. By placing reliance on the communication dated 16.12.2011 (page 37), it is contended that the borrowing department requested the parent department to show their approval/disapproval for extension of deputation period. In turn, by order dated 26.12.2011 (page 38) the parent department expressed its willingness for extension of deputation period by five years. Thereafter, by communication dated 26.05.2012 the borrowing department decided to alternatively extend the deputation period and decided to place the case of petitioner's deputation before the the Review Committee.

(3.) SHRI S. P. Jain, learned counsel for the Board, supported the order and relied on the proceedings of the Review Committee dated 20.01.2012. By taking this Court to various clauses of the decision, Shri Jain contended that it was already decided that soon after completion of four years of deputation period, the employees will be repatriated back to the parent department. He submits that the Managing Director was authorised to issue appropriate orders in compliance of the said decision. The decision was taken by the Full Board and five members including the concerned Minister attended the meeting. He submits that petitioner has no legal right to continue on deputation.