V.K. Bali, J. (Chairman) - (1.) MAHENDRA Singh, the applicant herein, is a Government of India employee in the Ministry of Labour and Employment (Directorate General of Employment & Training), the 4th respondent herein. He was promoted to the post of UDC on 1.8.1995. His principal employer forwarded his application for consideration of his posting on deputation on the post of Accountant, to Controller General of Accounts, Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure), the first respondent herein. He joined the Ministry of Commerce and Industry as Accountant on deputation basis. The order appointing him as Accountant on deputation basis dated 21.6.2004 has been placed on record at Annexure A-3. It inter alia records that the applicant had been selected for the post of Accountant in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000 on deputation in the office of Chief Controller of Accounts (Supply), New Delhi, and his appointment would be governed by the terms and conditions as laid down in Ministry of Finance OM No. 10(24) Estt./16 dated 4.5.1961, as amended from time to time. Initially the period of deputation was to be one year, likely to be extended for maximum of three years. Vide impugned order dated 16/18.7.2008 the applicant has been repatriated to his parent department. The order reads as follows: Consequent upon the expiry of deputation period for 4th year on 18.07.2008 (A.N.) in respect of Sh. MAHENDRA Singh, Accountant stands repatriated on 18.07.2008 (A.N.) from this office with the instructions to report for duty to his parent office, i.e. M/o Labour & employment, DGE&T, New Delhi. Even though, it is the case of the applicant that the borrowing department was in dire need to continue with deputationists due to acute shortage of manpower at their end, and the case of the applicant was under consideration for absorption as well, no arguments have been raised on that count, presumably for the reason that the applicant is conscious that deputation is a tripartite agreement and can be terminated by the principal or the borrowing employer, as also the employee. Repatriation terminating deputation, or on expiry of deputation period, can be challenged on very limited grounds, one being mala fides. It is mala fides which have been pressed into service in seeking to set aside the order of repatriation dated 16/18.7.2008 (annexure A-1). In that context, the only argument raised by the learned Counsel representing the applicant is that his principal employer/department has ensured repatriation of the applicant by clearly mentioning that all officials/members of staff who are on deputation in other Ministries/Departments would be called back, as that would ensure repatriation of the applicant. In that context, the learned Counsel refers to order/letter dated 24.6.2008, relevant part whereof reads as follows:
(2.) ...DG/JS has desired that all the officials/members of staff who are on deputation in other Ministries/ Departments may be called back. So the extension for deputation period of Shri Mahendra Singh, U.D.C. of VRC for Handicapped, Kanpur cannot be granted. We find no merit whatsoever in the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel. Order/letter dated 24.6.2008 is by the principal employer of the applicant addressed to the Assistant Director of Training, VRC for Handicapped, Kanpur. The order/letter aforesaid is in reference to letter dated 16.5.2008. The applicant has not placed on record letter dated 16.5.2008. Be that as it may, it appears to us that the order/letter aforesaid is in connection with continued deputation of the applicant, which has not been agreed to by the principal employer on the ground that as all officials/members of staff who are on deputation have to be called back, further deputation of the applicant cannot be permitted. The learned Counsel would like to read the order/letter dated 24.6.2008 as if to mean that with a view to stall continued deputation/ absorption of the applicant, all other members of staff on deputation have been called back. That cannot and is indeed not the meaning of order/letter dated 24.6.2008. Para 2 of the order/letter reproduced above would clearly mean that extension of deputation of the applicant cannot be allowed as all the officials/members of staff on deputation to other departments are to be called back. 2. Finding no merit in this application, we dismiss the same in limine.;