JUDGMENT
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.
1. The writ petitioners are the appellants.
2. The writ appeal is directed against the Orders of the learned single Judge made in WPMP. No. 19767/2003 and WPMP. No. 1465/2003.
3. The relief sought for in the Writ Petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider and absorb the petitioners in M/s. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘ONGC’). The appellants had an Order of interim injunction in WPMP. No. 1465/2003 and the respondents filed vacate stay petition in WPMP. No. 19767/2003 and both petitions were heard together and the Order of interim injunction was vacated and the application to vacate stay was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred this appeal.
4. At the time when the writ appeal was taken up, it is stated by the learned Advocate for the appellants that the relief sought for in the writ petition would govern this appeal and in the said circumstances, the Writ Petition is drawn and hear along with this appeal.
5. The writ petitioners, who are 19 in number are employed under the respondents 1 and 2. They were sent on deputation with the respondents 3 to 5 on various dates. According to the appellants, the 1st respondent by GO.MS. No. 741 dated 24.6.1978 evolved certain norms regarding the period for which an employee can be sent on deputation and it is stated that as per the said GO, the maximum period of deputation is 3 years normally and 4 years in special circumstances. The petitioners were sent on deputation initially for a period of 3 years and extended by one year and later by one more year. On 3.2.1999, the Home Secretary wrote a letter to the 2nd respondent, Fire Services Director, drawing his attention to the fact that keeping people on deputation for more than 4 years is contrary to the norms and directed him to either repatriate them to the parent department or ask the foreign employer (ONGC) to absorb them permanently. Several correspondences took place between the respondents 1 and 2 and the respondents 3 to 5 and ultimately, the 1st respondent by letter dated 26.2.2002 required the ONGC to revert the petitioners back to the parent department and further stated that the 1st respondent would however provide personnel for replacement of fire service personnel immediately. The 1st respondent is not willing to spare the services of the petitioners to the foreign employer (ONGC). Again on 15.3.2002 the 1st respondent wrote a letter to the 2nd respondent calling for a list of persons to be sent on deputation in place of the petitioners. As against the same, the petitioners made a representation to the Government and to other concerned authorities, but, the same was of no avail and the request of the petitioners for absorption in the parent department turned down and action was taken by the respondents 1 and 2, the petitioners have approached the court to assail the said action.
6. When the writ appeal along with the writ petition and the miscellaneous petitions came up for hearing before this court, a question was put to the appellants, whether a new set of Fire Officers, who are deputed by the respondents 1 and 2 to replace the appellants, have been made as parties and as the answer was ‘no’, they were given time to file one such application and thereupon the appellants have filed a petition to implead the respondents 6 to 25 as parties to the writ appeal.
7. Heard the learned Advocate for the appellants and the respondents 1 to 5 and the respondents 6 to 25.
8. Admittedly, the appellants are employees of the respondents 1 and 2. They were sent on deputation with the respondents 3 to 5. In normal course, the deputation would be for a period of 3 years as per GO.MS. No. 741 dated 24.6.1978 and in the special circumstances, it would be for 4 years. But, it is stated that the appellants are with the foreign department viz. Respondents 3 to 5 for more than 4 years. Taking that as a ground, the appellants claim that they are entitled to be in the foreign employer and they cannot be repatriated to the parent department, nor any one can be deputed in their place.
9. Now the question is, whether the appellants can claim as a matter of right to be in foreign department and to be absorbed or are they be repatriated to their parent department. Heard the learned Advocate for the appellants and all the respondents.
10. Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned advocate, appearing for the appellants would contend that the appellants are in the foreign department for more than 7 years and their services are very much required and liked by the respondents 3 to 5 and in fact, the 2nd respondent by his letter dated 20.7.1999, suggested to the 4th respondent either to repatriate the appellants or to take steps to absorb them with the respondents 3 to 5 and the learned Advocate also taken us to the letter dated 15.7.1998, written by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent seeking permission for extension of deputation upto September 1999. By letter dated 3.2.1999, from the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent, he was called upon either to repatriate them or to call upon the 3rd respondent to absorb them. In another proceedings dated 5.12.2000 issued by the Deputy Manager (Security), it is observed that the present Tamilnadu Fire Services Personnel are well versed in the fire fighting and salvage jobs and they are on deputation with us for the past 6 years. Secondly, they are having more than 20 years of service in Tamilnadu Fire Services/ONGC. They are capable of imparting training to Recruits as well as new entrants.
11. The appellants also relied upon the report of Fire Review Committee headed by Sri. Agarwal, IPS, Director General of Police (Retd) and Advisor to CMD, ONGC, who visited Chennai and Karaikal between 24th and 26th September 2001 and submitted a report that nearly 70 fire personnel are required for Cauvery Project of ONGC, whereas only 12 regular and 20 deputationists are available in ONGC Cauvery Project. If the ONGC is not absorbing the deputationists, fire service will be grossly insufficient to take care of fire service safety requirements of the project and therefore, the Committee suggested that ONGC can absorb the appellants. The ONGC also taken necessary steps to absorb them and the same is evident in the letter dated 15.2.2002 from ONGC to the Government. By pointing out all these letters and correspondences, the appellants are trying to impress that ONGC is willing to absorb them and they have been taking steps in that direction and it is a question of time only.
12. The appellants also relied upon the decision in the case of Rameswar Prasad v. Managing Director, UP. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited and others . That is the case where, the person sent on deputation is having statutory protection to be absorbed in the foreign undertaking and the deputations exercised his option to be in the foreign department and the Head of the Department was keeping silent and then stopped the payment of deputation allowance after the expiry of prescribed maximum period of deputation. That in the said context, it was held that the deputationist is stood absorbed from the date of discontinuance of his absorption allowance on the basis of statutory rules. But, in our case, the appellants are not entitled to any such statutory Rules governing the deputationist and in the absence of the same, this ruling is of no help to the appellants.
13. Per contra, Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 2 to 5 would submit that the appellants were only deputationists and they are always liable to be repatriated to their parent department and they cannot claim any right as vested right and in the absence of the same, the plea of the appellants cannot be accepted. It is further argued that the respondents 1 and 2 have already taken steps to repatriate them and relied upon the letters at page 15, 18 and 57(a) in the typed set of papers, wherein, it is made clear that the respondents 1 and 2 have taken steps to repatriate the appellants and that therefore, the appellants cannot claim deputation as a matter of right.
14. By letter dated 26.2.2002, the Government addressed a letter to ONGC, requesting to revert the 25 Fire Service Personnel, who were on deputation with them and also informed that the Government is permitted to provide replacement of 25 Fire Service Personnel on deputation basis. The services of the appellants were lent to the foreign department viz. ONGC and the right of the respondents 1 and 2 to repatriate them at any time is not in dispute. The appellants are only the deputationists and at any time, they could be repatriated to the parent department and they cannot claim any right in the foreign department. As and when the parent department wanted to recall and repatriate them, they are bound to come back to the parent department and the same cannot be objected to nor can be stalled by taking legal proceedings.
15. The learned Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 has further submitted that the law has been well settled that unless the claim of the deputationist for permanent absorption in the department where he works on deputation is based upon any statutory Rule, Regulation or Order having the force of law, a deputationist cannot assert and succeed in any such claim for absorption. The basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the person concerned can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in his substantive position therein at the instance of either of the departments and there is no vested right in such a person to continue for long on deputation or get absorbed in the department to which he had gone on deputation.” (Kunal Nanda v. Union of India and another-AIR-2000-SC-2076).
16. The respondents also relied upon the case of Union of India v. S.N. Panikar , wherein, the apex court had observed, “2….. A deputationist cannot claim either a right to the post in question nor can he claim absorption on permanent basis to the post in question.”
17. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Inder Singh and others , had an occasion to deal with a case of deputation and had observed, “The concept of ‘deputation’ is well understood in service law and has a recognised meaning. ‘Deputation’ has a different connotation in service law and the dictionary meaning of the word ‘deputation’ is of no help. In simple words ‘deputation’ means service outside the cadre or outside the parent department. Department is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside his cadre, that is to say, to another department on a temporary basis. After the expiry period of deputation the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he has earned promotion in his parent department as per the Recruitment Rules….. The law on deputation and repatriation is quite settled…. There is no escape for the respondents now to go back to their parent departments and working there as Constables or Head Constables as the case may be.”
18. The learned Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 has also submitted that the appellants cannot rely upon certain internal correspondences or certain recommendations made by the authorities concerned. To substantiate the said argument, they relied upon the case of MD, UP. Land Development Corporation and another v. Amar Singh and others , wherein it was held, “9…. The internal note and Order of the Corporation which is made the basis for the claim that twenty five posts were available on a regular basis, is itself not correct. At this stage, we may observe that the internal note and Order dated 2.11.1990 was prepared by the Director of the Corporation for his own purpose, but strangely enough a copy of the same was produced by the respondents in the writ petition. We fail to understand how the copy of this internal note and Order came into the hands of the respondents. Apart from the fact whether such an internal note itself could give any right to the respondents, the very reading of the same does not give an impression that it is indicated to create twenty five posts on a regular basis.”
19. In fact, the learned single Judge has also come heavily upon the reliance made by the appellants with regard to certain office endorsements and observed that “The learned Advocate for the petitioners heavily preferred to certain office endorsements. It is not known as to how notings on the files have been made available to the petitioners and it is an unfortunate situation. It is unfortunate that somebody in ONGC has lent their hands and made it available.” Thus, it is argued that the Agarwal Committee Report or other remarks or other observations and notings made by the departments would be of no avail.
20. Mr. Chandru, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the impleading respondents 6 to 25, while adopting the argument advanced on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, added by stating that the appellants are only the deputationists in the foreign department and their services were recalled and repatriated by the respondents 1 and 2 and the respondents 6 to 25 have already been sent on deputation to ONGC and they are working and as such, the appellants cannot at all sustain their claim.
21. We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the appellants and the respondents and we are of the clear view that the respondents 1 and 2 made it clear that the appellants belonged to their service and they were sent only on deputation to the respondents 3 to 5 and the said position is also not disputed. When the parent department, viz. Respondents 1 and 2 wanted to recall or repatriate them, the same cannot be questioned or stalled by the appellants. Repatriation of its employees by the parent department is a Rule and allowing them to continue in the foreign department is only an exception. Exception cannot be allowed. The service jurisprudence also do not accord any such right to the appellants and as such, the claim of the appellants that they have to be absorbed in the services of the respondents 3 to 5 as a matter of right is not at all guaranteed under the Constitution. As such, the appellants cannot sustain their claim. But, on the other hand, the rulings of the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India v. S.N. Panikar and MD, UP. Land Development Corporation and another v. Amar Singh and others are directly opposing the claim of the appellants and supporting the submissions of the respondents 1 and 2. As such, the appellants cannot challenge the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in repatriating the appellants. In the said circumstances, there is no good or valid reasons to interfere with the Orders of the learned Single Judge and to allow the writ petition and in the result, writ appeal fails and the writ petition is also dismissed.
22. In the result, the writ petition and the writ appeal are dismissed and the connected WAMP is also dismissed.
