bench rejected an appeal challenging a Single Judge's order dismissing a writ petition seeking interference with repatriation, holding no right exists for a deputationist to remain in position against establishment interest.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 83 of 2018
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondents
For Appellant Shri R. K. Jha, Advocate For Respondent-State Shri U. N. S. Deo, GA
Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr. Ajay Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Justice Mr. Prashant Kumar Mishra
Order On Board
26/07/2018
on deputation.
Sd/Sd/( Ajay Kumar Tripathi ) ( Prashant Kumar Mishra ) Chief Justice Judge
Nirala
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a deputationist has a right to continue on deputation despite the establishment's loss of interest due to alleged misconduct.
Whether an impugned order dismissing the writ petition refusing to interfere with repatriation of a deputationist lacks merit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kunad Nanda vs Union of India and anotherApplied¶22
Kunad Nanda vs Union of India and another, (2000) 5 SCC 362 · Who else cites this
Vijay Kumar Upadhyay
State Of Chhattisgarh
Ajay Kumar Tripathi
Prashant Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
