RAJU BANIK Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
STATE OF TRIPURA
Click here to view full judgement.
Akil Kureshi,J. -
(1.) Petitioner seeks permanent absorption in Government service in following background:
The petitioner was initially recruited by Tripura Jute Mills in the year 1996. He was sent on deputation as a Lower Division Clerk to Tripura Minorities Co-operative Development Corporation, a Government of Tripura undertaking in the year 1999 and worked for several years. On 17.12.2013, the Director of Welfare for Minorities offered the position of LDC to the petitioner to the said department on deputation. The petitioner accepted and was thus sent to the Government department on deputation, while still retaining his lien over his original post in Tripura Jute Mills. While so working as a deputationist, the petitioner made several representations to the Government requesting that they may be permanently absorbed in the Government service. When the department did not accept the request of the petitioner, he filed this petition which is strongly opposed by the respondents. In an affidavit dated 31.07.2018 filed by the respondents, it is pointed out that the representations of the petitioner were placed before the Finance Department which informed that there is no policy on the absorption of the staff deputed from public sector undertakings. It was also stated that there was no provision of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Lower Division Clerk for absorption of a deputationist from public sector undertaking.
(2.) Learned counsel, Mr. Arijit Bhaumik vehemently contended that the petitioner continued on deputation for over 22 years. He, therefore, has a right of absorption. As per the Government of Tripura policy, period of deputation should not exceed beyond 3 years. Look into long period of deputation of the petitioner, directions may be issued for his absorption in Government service. He relied on certain decisions to which reference would be made at a later stage.
(3.) As per settled law, through series of judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court, a deputationist has no right of absorption in the borrowing department. Mere length of deputation would not change his position. The Rules or Government instructions may provide for a maximum period of deputation, nevertheless exceeding such period would not create a corresponding right in favour of a deputationist to seek absorption as a matter of course. When the Recruitment Rules do not permit absorption of a person on deputation from a public sector undertaking, directing the Government to do so, would amount to asking the Government to act contrary to the Recruitment Rules and deprive eligible candidates of a fair opportunity of selection to a public employment. Further, when it is pointed out by the respondents in the reply that there is no policy of such absorption, giving directions for absorption would also be opposed to the Government policy which cannot be termed as unreasonable.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.