Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, Sri Satya Prakash and Sri Amit Srivastava, the learned counsels for the petitioners and Sri Suresh Singh, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) The petitioners have challenged the order dated 8.7.2005 issued by the Joint Commissioner, Trade Tax, whereby the petitioners have been repatriated back to their parent department, i.e., the Police Department. It transpires that on the request of the Trade Tax Department, the petitioners were sent on deputation to the Trade Tax Department for a period of three years. It is alleged that the period of three years has not yet expired and, by the impugned order, the period of deputation has been cut short and the petitioners have been repatriated back to their parent department. The ground of attack is, that the Joint Commissioner, Trade Tax has no power to issue the order of repatriation, inasmuch as, only the parent department could recall the petitioners. The Joint Commissioner, Trade Tax has the power and authority to transfer the petitioners in the Trade Tax Department itself, but could not transfer or repatriate the petitioners back to the parent department and that the parent department could alone issue the order of repatriation. Further, the period of deputation had not come to an end, therefore, without cancelling the original order, the present order of repatriation could not have been issued. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners' lien is still with the Police Department and, therefore, the order of repatriation could only be passed by the Police Department and not by the Trade Tax Department. In support of their contention, the learned counsels for the petitioners have relied upon a Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the case of Dr. Bhagat Singh v. The Vice Chancellor, Punjab University, Chandigarh and others, 1981 L.I.C.1057 , wherein it was held that a Government Officer who was appointed as a Vice Chancellor of a University for a period of three years and sent on deputation could not be recalled before the expiry of his term.
(3.) The learned counsels for the petitioners further submitted that the Trade Tax Department should have written to the parent department to repatriate the petitioners rather than issue the order of repatriation themselves. Since the Trade Tax Department had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned order, the impugned order was liable to be quashed.;