Dismissed

Sosar Tamo v. the State of Ap and Anr.

Gauhati HC7 Jun 2022WP(C)/199/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a serving Assistant Engineer seeking further extension of his deputation posting. The Court held that while the overstay was legal based on prior extensions, a deputationist has no indefeasible right to further extensions. The petition was dismissed without interference in administrative discretion.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayer for direction for further extension of posting was dismissed.

Sosar Tamo Vs the State of Ap and Anr. — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC040006442022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 199/2022

¶5

1:Sosar Tamo

¶6

Presently serving as Assistant Engineer, PHE and WS, Taliha Sub-Division, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF AP and Anr.

¶9

Represented by the Secretary, Public Health Engineering and Water Supply (PHED and WS) Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar.

¶10

2:The Under Secretary

¶11

Public Health Engineering and Water Supply (PHED and WS) Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : Abhai Kumar Singh

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP)

¶14

BEFORE

¶15

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.MEDHI

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 07-06-2022

¶18

Heard Shri A. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, who by means of this writ petition has prayed for a direction for further extension of his posting

¶19

Page No.# 2/3

¶20

on deputation in the Department of PHE & WS. It is the case of the petitioner that he substantially posted in the Urban and Housing Department and in the year 2016 he was deputed to the PHE & WS Department. Though the deputation was initially for 6(Six) months, it is the case of the petitioner that the authorities on their own wisdom has extended the period from time to time.

¶21

The petitioner submits that his continuation in the borrowing Department is in the interest of Public as he is serving without any blemish and therefore it is a fit case for consideration for further extension in the Department of PHE & WS.

¶22

On the other hand, Ms. G. Ete, learned State Counsel submits that the initial period of deputation was 6(Six) months whereafter, the petitioner had a role in the extension of deputation period from time to time and by now has completed almost 6(Six) years which is far beyond the original stipulated period of deputation.

¶23

The learned State counsel further submits that there is no indefeasible right of a deputationist is to continue in the borrowing Department and it is up to the administrative convenience to take a decision.

¶24

After hearing the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, this Court is of the view that writ petitioner has already over stayed his period of deputation. Though it is a matter of fact that such overstay was in accordance with law inasmuch as extension orders were passed from time to time, the writ petitioner as a deputationist cannot have a indefeasible right for further extensions in the borrowing Department.

¶25

Further, in absence of any illegality and allegations of mala fide any orders passed by this Court interfering to orders of deputation may not be

¶26

Page No.# 3/3

¶27

justified.

¶28

In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Sosar Tamo v. the State of Ap and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sosar Tamo v. the State of Ap and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zion Institute of Nursing (Zion) Vs Rani Borang and Anr.

Tania Rigia Vs the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Tadung Dada Vs Pravimal Abhishek Polumatla

Tagam Dong and 3 Ors. Vs Anirudh Singh and Anr.

Rangfe Yamke (Blange) Vs The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

M/s Donyi Polo Multi Purpose Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs the State of Ap and 3 Ors.