Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Pradeepkumar Deshbhratar, was an employee of Maharashtra Jivan Pradhikaran (respondent no.2), a Government of Maharashtra undertaking. He was on deputation with Zilla Parishad, Nagpur (respondent no.4) as Deputy Engineer since 2009, pursuant to an order dated 15.6.2009 which stipulated that the deputation would be for a period of three years. The terms of deputation provided that the deputation could be terminated earlier only if respondent no.2 recalled the petitioner in public interest or if respondent no.4 sent him back with three months' notice. On 31.5.2011, respondent no.2 issued a transfer order transferring the petitioner from Rural Water Supply, Sub-Division, Nagpur to Narkhed, which effectively recalled him from deputation before the three-year period. The initial transfer order stated that the transfer was on the petitioner's own request, which was false. A corrigendum was later issued deleting that phrase. The petitioner challenged the transfer order by way of a writ petition. The court issued notice and granted status quo on 10.6.2011. The respondents argued that the transfer was an administrative decision and the petitioner had no right to a particular posting. The court examined the terms of the deputation order and found that the transfer was not in public interest and no three months' notice was given by respondent no.4. The court held that the terms of deputation are binding and must be strictly followed. The corrigendum could not cure the initial illegality. The court quashed the transfer order and directed that the petitioner be allowed to continue on deputation with respondent no.4 for the remaining period. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Deputation - Transfer - Terms of Deputation - The petitioner was on deputation for three years with Zilla Parishad. The transfer order recalling him before the expiry of the period without giving three months' notice or showing public interest was held invalid. The court held that the terms of deputation are binding and must be strictly followed. (Paras 5-8) B) Service Law - Transfer - Corrigendum - The initial transfer order stated it was on the petitioner's own request, which was false. A later corrigendum deleting that phrase did not cure the illegality. The court held that the corrigendum cannot validate an order that was bad from inception. (Paras 5-8) C) Service Law - Deputation - Premature Recall - The terms of deputation allowed recall before three years only if the parent department recalled the employee in public interest or if the borrowing department sent him back with three months' notice. Neither condition was satisfied. The court held that the transfer was arbitrary and set it aside. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the transfer of an employee on deputation before expiry of the deputation period without following the terms and conditions of deputation is valid.
Final Decision
The court quashed the transfer order dated 31.5.2011 and directed that the petitioner be allowed to continue on deputation with respondent no.4 for the remaining period. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Deputation terms binding on employer
- Transfer without notice invalid
- Public interest requirement for premature recall
- Corrigendum cannot cure initial illegality
