Deputationist Has No Indefeasible Right To Continue In Borrowing Department, Repatriation Permissible If Work Not Satisfactory: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday dismissed the petition filed by Civil Police Officers who had been deputed to the Bureau of Immigration, seeking to continue on deputation till the expiry of their period. 

Reiterating that deputationists do not have a right to claim that they should be permitted to complete the entire tenure in the borrowing department, the Single Judge Bench of Justice N. Nagaresh, went on to state that the concept of repatriation was also inherent in deputation as long as the deputationist has not been permanently absorbed in the borrowing Department. 

"A deputationist does not have indefeasible right to continue in the borrowing Department. Repatriation can be resorted to on the grounds of unsuitability or unsatisfactory work. As long as the repatriation of the petitioners does not amount to reversion or imposition of penalty and as long as the decision is not vitiated by bias, the petitioners cannot have any legal grievance in the matter," the Court observed. 

It is the case of the first three petitioners that they had been working on deputation with the Bureau of Immigration for more than three years, and that they were granted an extension of deputation after the expiry of the initial three year period. The fourth petitioner on the other hand, was yet to complete his three year tenure. However, on March 7, 2023, the petitioners were served with an Order which stated that they would be repatriated to their parent Units and relieved of their duties from the Bureau of Immigration. 

It was contended by the counsels for the petitioners that the Order for repatriation did not reveal any reason warranting such premature repatriation. It was submitted that the respondents had not made any arrangements to fill up the vacancies either.

On behalf of the respondents, it was argued by Deputy Solicitor General of India S. Manu that the first three petitioners had already completed their tenure period of three years and that they had been continuing on extension, and the the fourth petitioner would also be competing his deputation tenure soon. It was argued that person on deputation to another department could not insist as a matter of right that they should be permitted to continue at the deputed station.It was also submitted that there was no rule or regulation which stipulated that a deputationist could not be repatriated before the expiry of the tenure period or before the expiry of the extended period.

The Court in this case noted that the statement filed by the petitioners indicated that they had been taking frequent leaves. 

"A deputationist working in a sensitive establishment like the Bureau of Immigration cannot avail frequent leaves ignoring the requirement of the Institution and sensitivity of the work, though leaves may be available to his credit. Statement filed on behalf of the Deputy Solicitor General of India would also show that the actual number of duties done by the petitioners in the year 2022 are 140, 154, 117 and 147 days respectively," the Court observed. 

It noted that it is after taking note that the Bureau of Immigration requires a higher degree of commitment and dedication from the field staff that the respondents had taken their decision. 

The Court also relied upon the precedents in Ratilal B. Soni & Ors v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2000), and Kumar Nanda v. Union of India & Anr. (2000), wherein the Apex Court had held that a deputationist could be reverted to his parent cadre at any time, and that there was no vested right in a person to continue for long or to get absorbed in the Department to which he is deputed. 

"In the case of the petitioners, the repatriation is not in violation of any statutory rules. The repatriation is for reasons which appear to be sound. Th e petitioners therefore cannot raise any legitimate legal grievance," the Court observed while dismissing the petition. 

The respondents were directed to ensure that the salary of the petitioners for the month of March would be paid promptly, and the petitioners were permitted to rejoin duty in their parent company by March 27, 2023. 

The petitioners were represented by Advocates Joseph George, P.A. Rejimon, and Sajeev John T. The DSGI and Government Pleader KG Sarojini appeared on behalf of the respondents. 

Case Title: Ajin K.A. & Ors. v. The Joint Deputy Director & Ors. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 157 

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment