The Allahabad High Court, in a judgment delivered on August 26, 2025, has held that an employee on ‘transfer on deputation’ does not possess an indefeasible right to complete the full tenure and can be repatriated to their parent department at any time by the borrowing department.
Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery dismissed the writ petition filed by Amit Kumar Gautam, an Assistant Engineer, who challenged his premature repatriation from U.P. Project Corporation Limited (UPPCL) to his parent department, the Irrigation and Water Resource Department of Uttar Pradesh.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Amit Kumar Gautam, an employee of the Irrigation and Water Resource Department, was sent on deputation to U.P. Project Corporation Limited by an order dated February 7, 2024. The order, issued on behalf of the Governor, stipulated that the deputation period would not exceed three years.
After serving for approximately one year, the petitioner was repatriated to his parent department by an order dated February 20, 2025, issued by UPPCL. The petitioner challenged this repatriation order before the High Court, seeking its quashing.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sandeep Kumar, argued that since the deputation was for a fixed period of three years and was sanctioned by an order issued on behalf of the Governor, only the State Government could order his repatriation. It was contended that the borrowing department, UPPCL, had no authority to repatriate him before the completion of his term. The counsel further submitted that the repatriation order was punitive in nature, stemming from unstated allegations, and was passed without any inquiry. It was also pointed out that UPPCL was still seeking officers on deputation, indicating a continuing need for such personnel.
Representing the respondent UPPCL, Ms. Vishakha Pande countered that the case was one of ‘transfer on deputation’ and not ‘appointment on deputation’, meaning the petitioner had no indefeasible right to continue for the prescribed period. She asserted that UPPCL, as an independent entity, was empowered to make decisions regarding its employees, including repatriation, without an order from the Governor. While acknowledging that the petitioner’s work was not satisfactory, she maintained that the repatriation order was not stigmatic as it did not mention any adverse reasons and no formal proceedings had been initiated against him.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery first addressed the primary issue of whether the petitioner had a right to remain on deputation for the entire prescribed period. The Court observed that this was not a case where the petitioner was appointed on deputation through a selection process, but was a “simple order of deputation.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India and another vs. S.N. Maity and another (2015), the High Court distinguished between ‘appointment on deputation’ and ‘transfer on deputation’. The Court noted that in cases of ‘transfer on deputation’, the employee has no indefeasible right to complete the term.
The judgment further relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Ratilal B. Soni and others vs. State of Gujarat and others (1990) and Kunal Nanda vs. Union of India and another (2000), which established the legal principle that a deputationist can be reverted to their parent cadre at any time. The Court quoted from the Kunal Nanda judgment: “The basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the person concerned can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in his substantive position therein at the instance of either of the departments and there is no vested right in such a person to continue for long on deputation or get absorbed in the department to which he had gone on deputation.”
Addressing the petitioner’s other arguments, the Court held that since UPPCL is a separate entity, its Managing Director was the appropriate authority to pass the repatriation order, and there was no jurisdictional error. The Court also found that the impugned order was not stigmatic. It observed, “There may be some reasons that working of petitioner was not found suitable by respondents but it does not reflect from impugned order. Even no inquiry was initiated by Corporation except few notices were issued.”
Decision of the Court
Based on this analysis, the High Court concluded that the arguments raised by the petitioner were not legally sustainable. The Court held that the petitioner could be repatriated to his parent department at any time, even before the prescribed period ended.
Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
However, in the interest of justice, the Court added an observation that the premature repatriation would not, by itself, disentitle the petitioner from being considered for a fresh deputation in the future if circumstances warrant.
