Dismissed

E. Aswathama, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC14 Mar 2014WP/7687/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition seeking declaration that the transfer/removal of a deputed employee as 5th respondent to the parent department was illegal and a direction to continue him in service, holding that deputation does not confer a right to continue and relief after period expiration is valid.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

E. Aswathama, Vs The Government of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.7687 of 2014

¶4

ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C. Bhanu)

¶5

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings issued by the second respondent in proceedings No.SOII(IV)/RWS&S/6355/99, dated 28-02-2014 as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in the office of the 5^th respondent.

¶6

2. The petitioner herein filed O.A.No.1619 of 2014 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) for the same relief as sought for in this writ petition. In the said O.A. the Tribunal while rejecting the interim order sought for by the petitioner herein, directed him to give notice to all the respondents.

¶7

3. Heard both sides.

¶8

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the fifth respondent recommended the petitioner for extension of services of applicant of on the ground that there are no experienced persons in their department still the Engineer-inChief, Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Department, Hyderabd (2^nd respondent herein) relieved him from duties on 28-02-2014

¶9

after expiry of deputation period. Hence, the writ petition.

¶10

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision reported in RAM PRAVESH SINGH AND OTHERS V. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS^[1] , wherein it is held in paragraph No.19 as follows:

¶11

17. Recently, a Constitution Bench of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [2006 (4) SCC 1] referred to the circumstances in which the doctrine of legitimate expectation can be invoked thus:

¶12

"The doctrine can be invoked if the decisions of the administrative authority affect the person by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which either (i) he had in the past been permitted by the decision-maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to do until there have been communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been given an opportunity to comment; or (ii) he has received assurance from the decision-maker that they will not be withdrawn without giving him first an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that they should not be withdrawn."

¶13

There cannot be any dispute that in case of deputation questioning of availability of doctrine legitimate expectation is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. Being on deputation does not confer any right to be continued in the deputation post and deputationist can therefore be reverted to the parent cadre at any time. There cannot be any dispute that repatriation to the parent department can be directed even before the expiry of the specified period of deputation. In this case the applicant was repatriated to parent department after the expiry of period of deputation. It is the discretionary power of borrowing department to continue him or not. When the borrowing department already relieved him from the

¶14

post, he has no right to continue to work in the deputation post and he was bound by the orders of the borrowing department. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly refused to grant interim order and that order needs no interfere by this Court. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

¶15

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶17

______________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶18

_______________ JUSTICE ANIS March 14, 2014

¶19

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU AND

¶21

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.7687 of 2014

¶23

March 14, 2014

¶24

¶25

[1] (2006) 8 Supreme Court Cases 381

E. Aswathama, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E. Aswathama, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs B.Adinarayana

Dr. T.G.K.Murthy, Vs Union of India

The commissioner of Backward classes,Andhra Pradesh Vs B.Ravi Chandra

The Government of a.P., Vs P.Venkateswarlu

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs K. Srinivasa Raju

M. Rajeshwar, S/o. Bhumanna, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its