1
Court No. 1
Special Appeal No. 469 of 2010
Ram Sajan Maurya and another
Vs.
The State of U.P. and others.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kant, J.
Hon’ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.
Heard the counsel for the appellant Sri Rajesh Tewari and Sri Rajiv
Ratan Chaudhary holding brief of Sri Jyontinjay Verma, for opposite party
no. 3.
The appellants while working as Primary Teachers under Basic
Shiksha Parishad, were sent on deputation to D.I.E.T vide order dated
2.8.07. Their deputation was for a period of one year, with a condition that
in case of their satisfactory service, it can be extended for a further period of
one year.
By means of an order dated 31.3.2010, the appellants have been sent
back to their parent department i.e. Basic Shiksha Parishad, in pursuance of
the directives said to have been issued by the Director of Education (Basic)
U.P., Lucknow on 11.2.2010.
Counsel for the appellants submits that the aforesaid direction was
not applicable in the case of the appellants, as those directions meant only
for those teachers, who were attached to some other post, whereas
appellants were sent on deputation and they cannot be treated as the
teachers/officers attached D.I.E.T. on any other post.
The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, against
which the present special appeal has been filed.
The technical plea which has been raised by the appellants is not
relevant for the reason that their appointments on deputation were made on
2.8.07 only for a period of one year, which could have been extended for a
further period of one year and since the appellants were allowed to work for
a period beyond one year, it can be presumed that their work was
satisfactory.
It is not in dispute that the appellants are working with the D.I.E.T.
since 2007 on deputation.
A deputationist cannot have any right to continue on deputation,
unless they are specifically allowed for the purpose and it is always within
2
the domain of the employer to send him back to the parent department. The
appellants after having worked for a period beyond one year, if are sent
back to their parent department, this Court would not interfere on
hypertechnical ground that they are deputationists and not attached teachers.
At this juncture, counsel for the appellants submitted that the
appellants are ready and willing to join in the parent department and they
may be allowed to do so.
We, therefore, provide that if the appellants report for duty in the
parent department within a period of ten days from today, they shall be
allowed to join and shall be paid salary regularly from the date they report
for duty. So far the payment of salary for the period during which the
appellants did not join after passing of the order discontinuing their
deputation is concerned, the same shall be considered and decided by the
authority concerned in accordance with rules.
Subject to above, the special appeal is dismissed.
Dated: 15.7.2010
MFA