K. Kannan, J. - (1.) The petitioners, who were admittedly teaching staff under the respondent-University, had been serving on deputation in a College, which was later taken over by the Government. The Government did not want the retention of their services and, therefore, they were required to be repatriated to the University. Out of 55 persons, 26 of them had been absorbed immediately by the University and for the remaining persons, the University wanted them to be placed on deputation to Government College at Rohtak. The petitioners did not give consent for being sent out on deputation and they had sought for an intervention through a writ petition before this Court that they could not be compelled to join any other College on deputation without their consent. In the said writ petition in CWP No.13929 of 2007, this Court had passed an interim order of stay restraining the respondents to be forced to join on deputation as Lecturer at the Government College, Rohtak. The Court also observed that "this shall not give right to the petitioners to rejoin as Lecturers in Maharishi Dayanand University". The writ petition came to be disposed of as having become infructuous ultimately on 16.05.2008 when the University gave an undertaking in Court that they would all be taken back by the University.
(2.) On the petitioners having been taken back by the University, the petitioners claimed for treatment of the period from the time when they were not absorbed till the date when the orders were passed taking them back as duty period. The respondents contended that for the period when they had not joined the University, they could not be granted any salary and that could be taken as non-duty period. While counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioners had always been assigned to some work, which they had carried out to the satisfaction of the University establishment, and that they could not be denied the right of consideration of treating the entire period as duty period, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would urge that the Division Bench order, while staying the order directing the petitioners to be sent on deputation, also observed that the petitioners would not have the right to rejoin as Lecturers in Maharishi Dayanand University. It was under such circumstance that the petitioners' services could not be utilised and the entire period could not be treated as duty period.
(3.) Two issues stand out for immediate consideration, namely, of whether it would have been possible for the University to compel any of the teaching staff to be sent on deputation without the concurrence of the staff and (ii) whether there was any bar against the University from securing the services of the staff at the University when they were repatriated to the University. Both these issues could be answered from what is well established in law that there could be no deputation of an employee against his will and a denial of a right to demand that he be allowed to rejoin could never have meant a prohibition against University from utilising employee's service. If the position would thus turn out, the consequence is that the period from 28th July, 2007 to 16th May, 2008 ought to be treated only as a period on duty and the petitioners shall be entitled to all the monetary benefits and service benefits attendant to such a treatment.;