Employee On Deputation Can Be Repatriated To Parent Cadre At Any Time: Calcutta High Court Upholds Repatriation Of ITAT's Senior Private Secretary

The writ petition before the High Court was filed by the applicant, whose original applications were dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

The Division Bench of Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya stated, “The other judgment relied upon by the respondents is judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ratilal B. Soni and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Others reported in 1990 Supp SCC 243. This judgment also lays down that employee being on deputation could be repatriated to their parent cadre at any time and that they do not get any right to be absorbed on the deputation post.”

“Considering the facts and legal position, the CAT’s order dated 25/03/2025, passed in OA No. 29 of 2025 upholding the petitioner’s repatriation, and rejecting his OA, in our considered opinion does not warrant any interference by this court in exercise of its extraordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India”, it ordered.

The Petitioner appeared in-person while Advocate Brajesh Jha represented the Union of India.

Factual Background

The petitioner was a Senior Private Secretary in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Visakhapatnam. He applied for the post of Principal Private Secretary (PPS) on deputation at the Armed Forces Tribunal, Kolkata (AFT). After the skill test and interview, an appointment letter was issued in his favour. The petitioner was relieved only after the order was passed by the Jabalpur Bench. He thus joined the office of AFT, Kolkata, two years after the issuance of his appointment order. Within six months of his joining, the petitioner was served with a three-month notice for repatriation to his parent department.

The petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing an original application challenging the repatriation notice. The application was disposed of as withdrawn. The petitioner thereafter made a representation, and while the same was pending, he was relieved by an order. The petitioner thereafter filed another application, which was disposed of by the CAT Kolkata Bench, and this formed the subject matter of the writ petition.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench found that the CAT had taken note of repeated complaints and representations being filed by the petitioner against the immediate superior, being the Registrar of AFT, addressed directly to the Registrar. He also made representations to the Chairperson, Kolkata Bench and was repeatedly issued a warning/advisory by the Superior Authorities. “It is apparent from the petitioner’s conduct at AFT that one cannot find fault with the opinion of the authorities that he was “unsuitable” and that his conduct was “unsatisfactory”, it added.

The Bench also took note of the fact that the respondent authorities had placed reliance on the judgment Kunal Nanda v. Union of India & Anr. (2000), wherein it has been observed that a person on deputation 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.

The Bench noticed that the repatriation was with the approval of the competent authority, namely the Minister of Defence. The 90-day notice, as well as the relieving order, did not cast any stigma on the petitioner. The petitioner stood relieved pursuant to the same.

Thus, finding no reason to interfere with the CAT’s order upholding the petitioner’s repatriation, the Bench dismissed the Writ Petition.

Cause Title: Vukkem Rambabu v. Union of India (Case No.: WPCT 94 of 2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Vukkem Rambabu (Petitioner-in-person)

Respondent: Advocates Brajesh Jha, Somnath Adhikary, Sukanta Chakraborty, S. Saha.

Click here to read/download Order