Dismissed

Mridal Mishra v. Union of India and 7 Others

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2021WRIA/1038/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging premature reversion from deputation to parent department dismissed as the appointment letter allowed repatriation without notice, overriding conflicting terms in the Office Memorandum, with no shown pecuniary loss.

What did the court decide?

Claim for premature reversion without notice was rejected; order dated 30.12.2020 upholding repatriation was allowed.

Mridal Mishra Vs Union of India and 7 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1038 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Mridal Mishra Respondent :- Union Of India And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikas Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

By means of the present petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 30.12.2020 whereby he has been sent to his parent department w.e.f 31.12.2020. The petitioner was sent on deputation in AIIMS, Gorakhpur on the post of Office Superintendent pursuant to the appointment letter dated 30.7.2019. The said selection was made on the recommendation of the Selection Committee which was constituted to offer appointment on various posts at AIIMS, Gorakhpur on deputation basis. The deputation was for a period not exceeding three years or until further orders, whichever is earlier, w.e.f the date of assumption of the charge of the post.

¶6

The appointment letter further records that the appointing authority reserved right to repatriate the petitioner to his regular post at any time during the period of his deputation without notice and without assigning any reasons. The petitioner was entitled to draw pay in accordance with the provisions contained in the office memorandum dated 17.6.2010 issued from the Ministry of Personnel and Training's and he, however, had an option to draw pay either in the payscale attached to the deputation post as may be fixed under the normal rules or to draw the pay of the post held by him in the parent Department on regular basis plus deputation/(duty) allowance in accordance with the instructions contained in the office memorandum dated 17.6.2010. Other terms and conditions were to be governed by the relevant rules and orders issued by the Government of India.

¶7

The repatriation of the petitioner to his parent department by the order dated 30.12.2020 is being challenged on the ground that the office memorandum dated 17.6.2010 issued by the Government of India Ministry of Personnel Public grievances (Pension Department of Personnel) provides in para '9' that normally an employee who is appointed on deputation post will remain posted at the deputation post till the end of his tenure, however, in case of any premature reversion to the parent department of the deputationist, his services could be so returned after giving advance notice of three months to the lending Ministry/Department and the employee concerned. The

¶8

contention is that no advance notice has been given to the petitioner and hence repatriation or premature reversion of the petitioner to his parent department is in violation of the office memorandum dated 17.6.2010.

¶9

Having perused the office memorandum dated 17.6.2010 and the terms and conditions of the appointment letter of the petitioner on the deputation post of Office Superintendent, AIIMS, Gorakhpur, it is evident that the appointment letter contained a clear term of appointment that the petitioner can be repatriated to his parent department without any notice at any time during the period of his deputation post. The petitioner having accepted the terms and conditions of the appointment letter, cannot be allowed to turn around and challenge the conditions of his appointment. Even otherwise, there is no contention in the writ petition that on account of repatriation of the petitioner, he is suffering any pecuniary loss in his payscale or his cadre has been changed. Prejudice caused to the petitioner, if any, has not been stated. The provision of Clause-9 of office memorandum dated 17.6.2010 therefore, cannot, be invoked to challenge the order of repatriation.

¶10

The writ petition is thus found devoid of merits and hence dismissed.

¶11

Order Date :- 27.1.2021 Harshita

¶12

Digitally signed by Justice Sunita Agarwal Date: 2021.01.28 09:40:15 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mridal Mishra v. Union of India and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mridal Mishra v. Union of India and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

H.R Tripathi Vs General Manager North Central 3 Others

Vishnu Dev Mishra Vs Union of India and 8 Others

Banti Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vipin Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shiv Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Rita Vs District Magistrate Sant Kabir Nagar and 3 Others