RISHABH KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2012, whereby the respondents have repatriated the petitioner and directed him to submit his joining before the parent department. Annexure P-2 contains similar direction and is issued in obedience of the order, Annexure P-1. It is challenged on the ground that it is not mentioned in the order as to where the petitioner has to join and, therefore, it will create inconvenience and hardship to the petitioner. In addition, it is submitted that the petitioner's performance was good and there is no occasion for the respondents to repatriate the petitioner.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid aspect.

(3.) The deputation order dated 20.7.2007 does not provide any term/tenure of deputation. The petitioner is repatriated to his parent department. The question is whether petitioner has any right to continue with the borrowing department or has a right to seek absorption. This point is no more res integra and decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Kunal Nanda Vs. Union of India, 2000 5 SCC 362. The Apex Court opined as under:-