Niranjan Kumar … v. 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Law Department, Ranchi. 2. Jharkhand State
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI 1 W.P. (S) No. 3089 of 2013 ............ Niranjan Kumar ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Law Department, Ranchi. 2. Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, through its Member Secretary, Ranchi. 3. Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee, through its Secretary, Ranchi. ..... Respondents. ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR ............. For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate : Mr. Vaibhav Kumar, J.C. to A.G. ............ 03/31.10.2013 The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondent no. 2 to consider and dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner for repatriation of his service to his parent office i.e. Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority from Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee and with a further prayer for direction upon the respondent no. 2 to sanction deputation allowance admissible to the petitioner for the period for which the petitioner remained on deputation in the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee and also for a direction to the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee to pay deputation allowance to the petitioner pursuant to the sanction accorded by the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority. 2 2. The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the writ petition are that, the petitioner was appointed vide memo dated 01.06.2002 on the post of personal assistant under Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority. Though the petitioner was appointed in Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority his service was placed to Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee vide memo dated 19.06.2002 and accordingly, the petitioner submitted his joining on 20.06.2002. The petitioner continued to work for more than 10 years and thereafter he preferred representation dated 06.04.2013 before the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority requesting him to consider his case for repatriation to his parent office i.e. Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority. 3. The petitioner has claimed his deputation allowance, which was 5% of the pay or maximum of Rs 500 per month. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner was appointed under Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority and his service was placed with Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee, he would be deemed to be on deputation with Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee. He has further submitted that in terms of Circular dated 16.08.1991, the petitioner is entitled for deputation allowance and since this was not paid to the petitioner, the petitioner 3 made a representation which also has not been decided by the respondents and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court. Alternatively, he has submitted that since the petitioner has continued to work for more than 10 years however, he was not paid deputation allowance, therefore, he has sought a direction upon the respondents to consider his representation for repatriation to his parent office. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has submitted that the State of Jharkhand has resisted the claim of the petitioner, in the counter-affidavit stating as under : 5. “That it is stated and submitted that the contentions and averments raised on behalf of the petitioner in the writ petition under reply are hereby denied and disputed save and except those which have specifically been admitted by the answering respondent in the present counter- affidavit.” 7. On a perusal of the documents on record more particularly, Annexure-2, on which the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on, I find that a communication was addressed to the Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee stating that the service of the petitioner was placed at the disposal of the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee. Along with the said letter dated 19.06.2002, other particulars of the petitioner was also sent to the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee. From the aforesaid letter, I donot find any indication that the 4 petitioner was placed on deputation with Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee. In service jurisprudence the word 'deputation' has a specific connotation which indicates express consent of all the three parties namely, employer, employee and the authority under which the service of the employee is sought to be put on deputation. From annexure-2 i.e. letter dated 19.06.2002, I donot find any such express consent. The petitioner has not brought on record his appointment letter or even the joining letters. In the present writ proceeding no material has been brought on record to indicate that the service of the petitioner was on deputation with the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner next contended that since the petitioner has served Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee for more than 10 years, his services should be deemed to have been on deputation. I do not find from the prayer in
Decision
the writ petition that a declaration has been sought by the petitioner that the service of the petitioner with Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee should be declared on deputation. I donot find any material in the writ petition indicating that the petitioner ever sought approval of his service with the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee 'on deputation'. Even the representation of the petitioner is silent on this aspect. The petitioner has straight-way claimed deputation allowance for the period he remained with Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee. Though, the 5 petitioner remained in service with the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee for more than 10 years he never raised any grievance for deputation allowance. No reason has been disclosed by the petitioner for seeking repatriation to the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on the Circular dated 16.08.1991 for grant of deputation allowance. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Before claiming deputation allowance, the petitioner is required to produce an order indicating that the service of the petitioner with the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee was on deputation. Unless the service of the petitioner is declared 'on deputation' with the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee, deputation allowance as mentioned in the Circular dated 16.08.1991 cannot be granted to the petitioner. 10. Now, adverting to the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner with respect to disposal of representation, I am of the view that each and every representation made by an employee is not required to be considered by the employer. Unless a claim which has a legal basis is made, the employer is not bound to consider such claim. Petitioner has served in Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee for more than 10 years and during this period, he has never raised any objection. 6 11. I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority and the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee. Tanuj/-N.A.F.R. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)