Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10621 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 276 of 2025 Petitioner :- Srikrishna Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Samir Om,Utsav Mishra Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel for respondent No.1 while Sri Utsav Misra, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 and filed vakalatnama, which is taken on record. 2. The petitioner, who is working on the post of Finance and Accounts Officer on deputation in State Water and Sanitation Mission, U.P., Lucknow has assailed the impugned order dated 2.12.2024 by means of which his deputation has been curtailed and he is being repatriated to his parent department. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that that in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondents on 19.7.2021 the petitioner had moved an application for appointment on deputation in State Water and Sanitation Mission, U.P. and he was duly issued appointment letter on 4.10.2021. Subsequently, his parent department i.e. Accountant General, Audit Bhawan, Madhya Pradesh had given no objection in pursuance to which the petitioner joined to the present place of posting. Each year extension was sought by the petitioner and on the recommendations of the respondents his parent department duly granted the said permission for continuance of his deputation. He has further submitted that by means of letter dated 4.6.2024 the Finance Controller of State Water and Sanitation Mission, had directed the petitioner to seek extension from the parent department which was duly sought and was granted on the same day and submitted along with the direction for seeking further extension. The Finance Controller had also written a letter and sent recommendation stating that the performance of the petitioner was outstanding. 4. It is further noticed that three years' period expired on 4.10.2024. It is further submitted that his tenure would now come to an end on 30.11.2025 and accordingly there is no reason indicated in the impugned order as to why the tenure has been curtailed. He has further submitted that according to the relevant government order he has right to continue till five years and in case the respondents want to curtail the tenure reasons have to be stated in the order in absence of which the impugned order would be arbitrary. 5. Sri Utsav Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that undoubtedly a person on deputation has a right to continue for an initial period of three years but continuance for further two years is subject to approval of the Finance Department. He submits that in this regard the Government Order dated 26.5.2003 is extremely clear in its terms and the same was subject matter of consideration in similar circumstances by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Prashant Bhatt Vs. State of U.P. and others, passed in Writ A No.8446 of 2023 where the prayer for direction to permit the petitioner therein to continue for a period of five years was rejected only on the ground that in absence of any concurrence of the Finance Department no such direction can be made. 6. After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join his parent department i.e. office of Accountant General, Madhya Pradesh. He submits that prior to his joining on deputation the parent department of the petitioner was regularly depositing the amount of employee's contribution of National Pension Scheme (NPS) and after working with the opposite party No.2 the said amount of employee's contribution continued to be deposited by them but after the petitioner has been repatriated vide order dated 2.12.2024, the said amount of employee's contribution of NPS has not been deposited since April, 2024. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents Sri Utsav Mshra has fairly submitted hat till the period the petitioner has remained on deputation the responsibility to deposit the aforesaid amount of NPS would be that of respondent No.3 and in case the amount of NPS has not been deposited opposite party No.3 shall deposit the same, expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from today. 8. With regard to the amount of employee's contribution of NPS to be deposited after the petitioner has been relieved from the borrowing department, the responsibility of the same would be with the office of Accountant General, Madhya Pradesh. Considering the fact that no direction for extension of the deputation of the petitioner is being passed by this Court in light of the assurance made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is expected that opposite party No.3 shall proceed to deposit the amount of NPS from the date the petitioner has been relieved by the borrowing department. In this regard, the petitioner may also move appropriate application before opposite party No.3 for regularizing his services for the period he is being relieved by the borrowing department till he joins before opposite party No.3 and consider passing appropriate orders on the application, if any, moved by the petitioner. 9. With aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 18.2.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench