VIJAY SINGH RAO Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims himself to be the senior-most Additional Registrar in the Co-operative Department, Haryana. He was sent on deputation to the Government of India as Private Secretary to the Union Minister of Agriculture, New Delhi, in the year 1981. Vide letter dated 2nd February, 1984 (Annexure P. 1) he was selected to the post of Zonal Manager to work on deputation with the Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-operative Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'iffco') for a period of 2 years. Vide order dated 18th April, 1984 (Annexure P. 2), he was recalled from deputation from the Government of India and was placed on deputation with the IFFCO for appointment as Zonal Manager (North) at Chandigarh. Vide order dated 27th April, 1985 (Annexure P. 3), the State of Haryana, respondent No. 1, recalled him from the IFFCO and posted him as Chief Auditor, Cooperative Societies, Haryana, Chandigarh, against a leave vacancy, on which post he is working at present. Again, vide order dated 3rd August, 1985 (Annexure P. 4), he has been posted on deputation as Additional Managing Director with the Haryana State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the HAFED' ). He submitted an application dated 12th August, 1985 (Annexure P. 5) to respondent No. 1, representing against his being sent on deputation to the HAFED. He relied on the instructions of the Finance Department, dated 11th May, 1977, extracted in Annexure P. 6, and contended that, on return from the earlier deputation, he has not yet completed two years in the parent Department and, therefore, could not be sent on deputation. He further contended that he could not be sent on deputation against his will. However, vide order dated 9th September, 1985 (Annexure P. 7), he was directed to relinquish the charge of the post of Chief Auditor and assume charge of the post of Additional Managing Director with the HAFED in compliance with the order dated 3rd August, 1985 (Annexure P. 4 ). Aggrieved by the orders, Annexures P. 4 and P. 7, he has filed the present writ-petition challenging the aforesaid orders, more or less, on the basis of the contention which he raised in his application Annexure P. 5.

(2.) THE writ-petition came up for motion hearing on 12th September 1985 before a Division Bench. While issuing notice of motion, operation of the impugned order Annexure P. 4, to the extent it effected the petitioner, was stayed.

(3.) WRITTEN statement has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. In defence, it is contended that the instructions of the Finance Department (Annexure P. 6) are administrative in nature. It is further asserted that the HAFED is an incorporated body which is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government. Therefore, in view of the proviso to Rule 10. 2 (a) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') the petitioner could be sent on deputation to HAFED as Additional Managing Director even against his will.