GURNAM SINGH Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.01.2017 vide which the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (in short, `the Tribunal') has declined to grant ad interim stay against the order of his repatriation from the Directorate of Enforcement to his parent department, namely, the Central Forensic Science Laboratory.

(2.) Though the Tribunal was not required to pass such a detailed order while considering the request for ad interim relief, nevertheless, the petitioner is admittedly a permanent employee of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh (CFSL) and he was taken on deputation to the Enforcement Directorate on the post of Deputy Director initially for three years which was further extended for another two years. The petitioner is now due for retirement on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.11.2017. His deputation period of five years stood expired on 31.12016. The competent authority in the Directorate of Enforcement in its wisdom has taken a decision not to extend the deputation period of the petitioner and consequently, he has been repatriated. The only factor which the Tribunal ought to have considered in this factual backdrop was whether repatriation of the petitioner to his parent department would cause any irreparable loss or that a prima facie case for his retention in the Directorate of Enforcement is made out?

(3.) Deputation is essentially a consensual act between the borrowing and the lending departments. Unless both the departments agree, the employee concerned cannot compel them for sending and/or retaining him on deputation. In the instant case, the borrowing department has expressed its inability to retain the petitioner on deputation. Even if the Government of India Instructions allow extension in deputation beyond a period of five years, such an enabling provision cannot be construed to have conferred an enforceable right on an employee to seek retention in deputation period.