RAM GANGA COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. versus SHEETAL KUMAR VAISH AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 958 · Decided: 12-03-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAM GANGA COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
B 
c 
AND ANR. 
v. 
SHEETAL KUMAR YAISH AND ORS. 
MARCH 12, 2003 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Service law: 
Appointment on deputation-Borrowing Authority conferred temporary 
status on the employee~Repatriationlrelieving of employee on the request of 
Parent Department-Challenge to-:Writ petition allowed by the High Court 
holding that employee was working in substantive capacity with the borrowing 
Authority-On appeal, Held, since employee was sent on deputation, his 
D temporary appointment by the borrowing Authority cannot be considered as 
substantive appointment-Hence order of repatriation does not suffer from 
any infirmity. 
Respondent-employee was appointed as Assistant Sales Officer/Field 
Officer by the Milk Board. He was later sent on deputation to the 
E appellant-authority. Appeliant appointed the respondent-employee on 
temporary basis on an equivalent post and his pay was fixed after granting 
five increments. Subsequently, State Government abolished all posts in the 
appellant authority except direct recruits. At this junction, the Milk Board 
requested for the repatriation of the respondent-employee and he was 
relieved by the Authority. Relieving order was challenged by the employee 
F by filing a writ petition in the High Court. High Court allowed the writ 
petition, holding that he been working with the Authority in substantive 
capacity. Hence the present appeals. 
It was contended for the appellants that since both the employee as 
G well as the Milk Board admitted that the employee joined the Authority 
for employment on deputation basis and he was repatriated on the request 
of the Milk Board, it is not open for them to take different stand later on; 
and that since State Government while fixing pay of the respondent-
employee did not determine his status of employment and he was 
appointed purely on temporary basis, he cannot be retained with the 
H 
958 
... 
RAM GANGA COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. S.K. VAISH 
959 
Authority after abolition of all posts by the State Government. 
On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that in view of varying 
stands about the status and employment of the employee taken by the 
appellant and the State Government, they are estopped from taking a 
different stand that he was on deputation with the Authority. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
A 
B 
HELD: 1.1. Right .from the beginning, the employee and the Milk 
Board as well as the appellant Authority proceeded on the footing that 
the employee was on deputation. This becomes clear from the stand taken 
by the emi;loyee asserting that he was on deputation. The Milk Board C 
initiated action for repatriation of the employee by writing to the 
Authority, clearly indicating that the employee was on deputation. In 
response the Authority acted. Therefore, it is not open to the Milk Board 
to take a contrary stand. [966"G, HJ 
1.2. The State Government order dated 4.6.1982 was not directly on D 
the question of deputation, but primarily related to fixation of pay .. 
Therefore, that letter was not of any conclusive or determinative value so 
far as the controversy as to the status of appointment of the employee is 
concerned. The inevitable conclusion is that the employee was on 
deputation from the Milk Board and appointment on temporary basis with E · 
the Authority can, by no stretch of imagination, be considered to be 
substantive appointment. Abolition of posts is an aspect which cannot be 
lost sight of. Therefore, the order of repatriation does not suffer from any 
infirmity. [967-A-q 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2048-2049 of F 
1999. 
From the JUdgment and Order dated 15.7.1997 of the Allahabad High 
Court in W.P. Nos. 618/83 and 557 (SIB) of 1994. 
WITH 
C.A. No\s. 2119-2120 of 1999. 
G 
Gopal Subramaniam, Dinesh Dwivedi, S.C. Maheshwari, R.B. Mehrotra, 
Prashant Kumar, Arvind Verma, Ms. Sandhya Goswami, M.P.S. Verma, Ravi 
P.Mehrotra, Garesh Kabra, Pradyot Kumar Chakravarty, Ajay K. Agrawal, H 
960 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] 2 S.C.R. 
A Narendra Kumar Roy and Ms. Alka Agrawal for the appearing parties. 
The Judg'inent of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT J. These appeals are classic examples of how 
simple controversies can be turned into confusions galore. The chameleonic 
B somersaults in stands taken by the concerned authorities has added to the 
confusion in no less measure. The controver

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.