Petitioner challenged deprivation of regularization after deputation to NHAI. Court held deputationists lack vested right to absorption, especially when recall letter was issued before absorption consideration. Petition dismissed.
Petition dismissed; no right to regularization found.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9065 of 2017
======================================================
Ashok Kumar Jha Son of Sri Harihar Jha, resident of House No. 4, North Patel Ngar, P.O.- Keshri Nagar, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ashutosh Ranjan Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Addl. SG Mr. S.N. Pathak
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY)
3 28-01-2020
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India as well as National Highway Authority of India.
In the present case, grievance has been raised against National Highway Authority of India that the petitioner has been deprived of the benefit of regularisation in National Highway Authority of India.
The petitioner is originally an employee of Arunachal Pradesh Government, was sent on deputation to National Highway Authority of India on 04.09.2008, remained there upto
Patna High Court CWJC No.9065 of 2017(3) dt.28-01-2020 2/3
14.05.2012. In the meantime, National Highway Authority of India issued an Advertisement calling upon the application from the interested persons for their absorption and the due date was fixed as 01.01.2012, but that advertisement was not acted upon, thereafter, the second advertisement was published for absorption on 29.08.2012 in which the due date was fixed as 01.01.2012 and when the National Highway Authority of India has considered the case of candidates for their absorption, on that date, the petitioner was not on the role of National Highway Authority of India, hence his application was not considered for absorption.
It is well known principle of law that the deputationist does not have any vested right and the principal employer can call back the person to his parent department.
In the present case, before regularisation of the petitioner could have been acted upon, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh has issued a letter for the return of the petitioner, on the date of consideration of absorption, he was not on the role of National Highway Authority of India, hence this Court does not find any right or vested right to the petitioner for consideration of the case of the petitioner for absorption.
We do not find any error in the impugned order and,
Patna High Court CWJC No.9065 of 2017(3) dt.28-01-2020 3/3
accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
(Shivaji Pandey, J)
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)
Mahesh/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a deputationist has a vested right to regularization/absorption in the facilitating employee organization.
Ashok Kumar Jha
Union of India
National Highway Authority of India
State of Arunachal Pradesh
Shivaji Pandey
Anjani Kumar Sharan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
