Full Text
Translation output
S~4 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 4587/2015 and CM No. 8299/2015
SURESH KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Mr Viltram Saini, Adv.
W.P.(C) 4587/2015 and CM No. 8299/2015
SURESH KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Mr Viltram Saini, Adv.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondents
Through: Mr Kirtiman Singh, CGSC and Mr Jitender Kumar Tripath and Mr Waize Ali Noor, Advs.
Through: Mr Kirtiman Singh, CGSC and Mr Jitender Kumar Tripath and Mr Waize Ali Noor, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
21.08.2015 The petitioner's grievance is that by the impugned order dated
10.02.2015, he was given notice that he would be repatriated to his
Parent Department with effect from 10.05.2015. The impugned order was made by the Intelligence Bureau ("IB"), which is the borrowing organization.
The petitioner joined the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) in
1990 and he was deputed to the IB on 04.11.2010. The tenure of his deputation—in terms of the existing extant instruction—was five years; however, it is not in dispute that deputation period was curtailed. On
10.02.2015, the IB issued the following repatriation order impugned in this case which is in the following tenns:-
"(S/zr/ Suresh Kumar, JIO-II/G(PIS No.1351 73), a deputationist HC/GDNo.900232018, ITBP is hereby given
03 months notice in terms ofpara 9 ofDoP&T OM dated
17.06.2010 for repatriation to his parent department. On expiry of the above notice period, he will stand repatriated to his parent department w.e.f. 10.05.2015 with the
2015:DHC:11517-DB cf direction to report for duty to the Deputy
Commandant/Office, Directorate General, ITBP, BlockNo.
2, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
Sd/ (B.K. Singh)
Joint Director/E " It is contended that no reasons were attributed for the impugned order and it is consequently arbitraiy. During the course of hearing, ITBP's eounsel argued that according to his instructions, the superior officers, who are said to have recommended the petitioner's case, infact, never did so and that this ultimately prevailed with the IB which issued the repatriation order. ^
It is evident from the above that the petitioner's tenure for deputation was of five years. It was to end in November, 2015. He was given three months' notice on 10.02.2015 that he would be repatriated.
In other words, repatriation occurredabout six months beforethe ending of the tenure. Given that no deputationist has a vested or settled right to continue to the deputation post or even seek absorption as the same would depend on the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the petitioner's claim that the impugned order is illegal, is unfounded. No relief can be granted.
The writ petition along with the pending application is, therefore, dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J lb TtV a) .QT DEEPA SHARMA, J
AUGUST 21,2015 bg 2015:DHC:11517-DB
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
21.08.2015 The petitioner's grievance is that by the impugned order dated
10.02.2015, he was given notice that he would be repatriated to his
Parent Department with effect from 10.05.2015. The impugned order was made by the Intelligence Bureau ("IB"), which is the borrowing organization.
The petitioner joined the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) in
1990 and he was deputed to the IB on 04.11.2010. The tenure of his deputation—in terms of the existing extant instruction—was five years; however, it is not in dispute that deputation period was curtailed. On
10.02.2015, the IB issued the following repatriation order impugned in this case which is in the following tenns:-
"(S/zr/ Suresh Kumar, JIO-II/G(PIS No.1351 73), a deputationist HC/GDNo.900232018, ITBP is hereby given
03 months notice in terms ofpara 9 ofDoP&T OM dated
17.06.2010 for repatriation to his parent department. On expiry of the above notice period, he will stand repatriated to his parent department w.e.f. 10.05.2015 with the
2015:DHC:11517-DB cf direction to report for duty to the Deputy
Commandant/Office, Directorate General, ITBP, BlockNo.
2, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
Sd/ (B.K. Singh)
Joint Director/E " It is contended that no reasons were attributed for the impugned order and it is consequently arbitraiy. During the course of hearing, ITBP's eounsel argued that according to his instructions, the superior officers, who are said to have recommended the petitioner's case, infact, never did so and that this ultimately prevailed with the IB which issued the repatriation order. ^
It is evident from the above that the petitioner's tenure for deputation was of five years. It was to end in November, 2015. He was given three months' notice on 10.02.2015 that he would be repatriated.
In other words, repatriation occurredabout six months beforethe ending of the tenure. Given that no deputationist has a vested or settled right to continue to the deputation post or even seek absorption as the same would depend on the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the petitioner's claim that the impugned order is illegal, is unfounded. No relief can be granted.
The writ petition along with the pending application is, therefore, dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J lb TtV a) .QT DEEPA SHARMA, J
AUGUST 21,2015 bg 2015:DHC:11517-DB
JUDGMENT