IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5771 of 2025 Date of Decision: 19.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Dr. Harminder Singh Baweja …….Petitioner Versus Dr. Y.S.Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry Nauni & another … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Anup Rattan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Swati Draik, Advocate, for respondent No.2. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction especially in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside impugned Office order dated 24.05.2024 issued by the respondent- University with approval of the respondent Vice Chancellor for being without any jurisdiction; (ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction especially in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside impugned communication dated 29.03.2025 by the respondent 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 University to the borrowing department for being illegal, mala fide and manifestly arbitrary; (iii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction especially in the nature of mandamus directing respondent-University to accept the joining of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.02.2024 pursuant to relinquishment of the charge by the petitioner after the expiry of the deputation period w.e.f. 31.01.2024 and consequently to make his posting as per his seniority under the UHF Acts and statutes of the respondent- University; (iv) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction especially in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondent university to release the salary of petitioner from 01.02.2024 with interest @ 18% per annum; (v) To issue direction to respondent-University to accept provisional joining of to the petitioner and to give him a post as per his seniority, and in accordance with law during the pendency of the present writ petition.” 2. For having bird’s eye view, facts relevant for adjudication of the case at hand, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that the petitioner, who was otherwise holding post of Professor in the respondent-University, was sent on deputation with the Government of Uttarakhand w.e.f.01.02.2021 till 31.01.2024 During afore period, petitioner remained posted as Director of Horticulture and Food Processing, Uttarakhand. Though, initially deputation was for a period of one year, but same was subsequently extended for further period of two years. Before expiry of extended period of deputation, petitioner came to be suspended from service by Government of Uttarakhand vide suspension order 3 dated 12.06.2023 (Annexure P-9). Two separate departmental charge sheets were also served upon the petitioner on 12.06.2023 and 3.07.2023 respectively. Besides afore disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, matter was also ordered to be investigated by CBI by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. 3. Though, after expiry of period of deputation, petitioner repeatedly requested State of Uttarakhand to repatriate him to his parent department i.e. respondent-University, but since no formal order in that regard was ever issued by State of Uttarakhand, petitioner relinquished the charge of Director of Horticulture and Food Processing Department, Uttarakhand on 31.01.2024 and submitted his joining in the respondent-University on 01.02.2024.To substantiate factum with regard to his joining with respondent-University, petitioner has placed on record an office order dated 01.02.2024,issued by Professor, Head of Floriculture & Landscape Architecture of respondent-University (Annexure P-18). 4. Though, vide aforesaid communication, petitioner had furnished his joining with the respondent-University, but yet he kept on receiving various communications from the respondent-University questioning his right to re-join his substantive post in the respondent- University on the ground that till date Uttarakhand Government had not revoked the suspension of the petitioner and secondly, the 4 borrowing entity i.e State of Uttarakhand, had not relieved him. Vide office order dated 20.02.2024, issued under the signatures of Registrar, respondent-University, joining, which was otherwise accepted by Head of the Department concerned at first instance, was ordered to be accepted subject to receipt of advice/clarification from the Secretary (Horticulture) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, to whom respondent-University had sent a communication dated 09.02.2024(Annexure P-19). 5. Vide communication dated 03.05.2024 (Annexure R-7), Joint Secretary (Horticulture) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh advised Registrar of respondent-University to seek clarification from Government of Uttarakhand as to whether “the joining submitted by the petitioner after expiry of his deputation period can be accepted by the respondent-University or otherwise; and if yes, is he still required to be treated as suspended employee by the respondent-University till his suspension is revoked by the borrowing department or not?”. Vide aforesaid communication, respondent-University also came to be apprised that matter was taken up with the Department of Personnel vide UO Note dated 01.05.2024, which tendered its advice/ clarification in following manner:- “ It is observed that before joining in the YSPUHF, Nauni, the borrowing department has to take decision on suspension appeal made by Dr. H.S. Baweja to revoke his suspension and also to relieve/place his services to the lending department.” 5 6. Since despite petitioner having given joining, he was not being permitted to work and his salary was not being released, he approached this Court by way of CWP No. 3702 of 2024, titled Dr. Harminder Singh Baweja vs. Dr. Y.S. Parmar University and another, praying therein for following reliefs:- (i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction especially in the nature of Certiorari quashing of the impugned orders dated 08.04.2024 ( Annexure P-19 to P-22), whereby it is stated that the joining of petitioner has not been accepted yet and is under consideration, consequent thereto the petitioner has not been paid salary since 01.02.2024, not allowed to mark attendance, not given earned leave etc. being illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional amounts to taking away and abridging fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India; (ii) To issue writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to accept the joining of the petitioner as Principal Scientist w.e.f. 01.02.2024 and to provide him statutory post as per the prevailing rules and regulations of the respondent university, keeping in view the seniority of petitioner; (iii) To direct the respondent university to release the salary of petitioner from 01.02.2024 and also to release the same regularly, not releasing the salary amounts to violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India; (iv) To issue respondent direction university to to accept the joining of the petitioner as Principal Scientist on provisional basis and also to provisionally allocate the statutory post, during the pendency of the present writ petition.” 7. In afore writ petition, respondent-University set up a case that till the time suspension is not revoked by State of Uttarakhand, 6 petitioner cannot be permitted to re-join. It also came to be pleaded on behalf of respondent-University that no relieving order from Uttarakhand Government has been adduced on record by the petitioner and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondent-University, while not permitting the petitioner to re-join. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 24.05.2024 (Annexure P-21) dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner observing therein that “it is for the petitioner to justify his stand before respondent-University that despite of continuance of his suspension by Uttarakhand Government, he was still eligible to rejoin the parent department after relinquishing the charge of deputation post of his own and for such purpose the petitioner shall always have the liberty”. 8. In the aforesaid background, petitioner vide communication dated 28.05.2024 (Annexure P-22) requested the Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, Government of Uttarakhand to provide relieving order from the post of Director Horticulture and Food Processing, Uttarakhand. Since nothing was heard from department concerned of Uttarakhand Government, petitioner approached High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital by way of Writ Petition(S/B) No.307 of 2024 (Annexure P-23), praying therein for following reliefs: 7 “(i) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to accept the charge relinquishment report dated 31.01.2024 given by the petitioner and to repatriate him back to his parent department w.e.f. 31.01.2024; (ii) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for revocation/quashing of the suspension order bearing No. NIL/XIII-1/2023-13(1) 2023 dated 12.06.2023 passed by the respondent alongwith quashing of the impugned letter dated 07.03.2024. In light of the fact that the petitioner’s period of deputation ended on 31.01.2024.” 9. In afore petition, a supplementary counter affidavit dated 26.11.2024 came to be filed on behalf of State of Uttarakhand, wherein it came to be pleaded that “till the period of deputation i.e. 31.01.2024, the petitioner was duly paid his remuneration/subsistence allowance as per law. However, since after 31.01.2024, period of deputation has come to an end and the petitioner has informed the State Government about his being relieved unilaterally w.e.f.31.01.2024, therefore, technically the petitioner is not an employee of State of Uttarakhand from the said date and the State is not liable to pay him any subsistence after the said date”. Taking note of aforesaid plea set up by State of Uttarakhand in supplementary counter affidavit dated 26.11.2024, High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital disposed of the petition filed by the petitioner by observing as under:- 8 “5. By the aforesaid contents of paragraph 18, the State has clearly dissolved the employer-employee relationship, and has said that the same came to be terminated with effect from 31.01.2024, and that the employer-employee relationship is only notional, and for the purposes of the inquiry; 6. In that view of the matter, the relief sought for having being clarified by the respondent/State by paragraph No.18, we do not feel it necessary to issue further directions, as sought for by the petitioner. 7. In a sense, the writ petitioner has rendered infructuous, as the reliefs sought have primarily been resolved by the petitioner unilateral action of relieving himself from the post and the affirmation by the respondent supra. The writ petition stands disposed off.” 10. In nutshell, High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital after having perused affidavit filed by State of Uttarakhand arrived at a conclusion that relationship of employer-employee interse petitioner and Uttarakhand Government has come to an end w.e.f. 31.01.2024 and same is only notional for the purpose of inquiry. While disposing of the petition, High Court of Uttarakhand observed that in view of aforesaid fact, there appears to be no necessity to issue any direction as was otherwise sought by the petitioner. Most importantly, in para-7 of judgment, High Court of Uttarakhand has observed that “reliefs sought have primarily been resolved by the petitioner’s unilateral action of relieving himself from the post and the affirmation by the respondent –University”. 9 11. Very crux of aforesaid judgment, if perused in its entirety, is that though at first instance, petitioner had unilaterally relieved himself from the post given to him on deputation, but subsequently same was affirmed by the respondent- State of Uttarakhand by filing affidavit in the petition filed by the petitioner stating therein that w.e.f. 31.01.2024 technically the petitioner is not an employee of State of Uttarakhand and as such, State is not liable to pay him any subsistence after the said date. 12. Though, after passing of aforesaid judgment by High Court of Uttarakhand, petitioner by way of representation dated 20.03.2025 (Annexure P-25), approached respondent-University, but same was rejected vide impugned order dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) The petitioner again attempted to prevail upon the respondent- University to permit him to work against the post of Professor and give him salary from the date he had furnished his joining, but since his prayer was not favourably considered, he approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the reliefs, as have been reproduced hereinabove. 13. 13. Pursuant to the notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-University as well as State of Uttarakhand have filed their respective replies, wherein facts, as have been noticed hereinabove, have not been disputed, rather stand admitted. If the reply filed by the 10 respondent-University is read in its entirety, its entire case is that till the time suspension order of the petitioner is not revoked or he is not formally relieved by State of Uttarakhand, he cannot be permitted to re-join in the University as Professor. To substantiate aforesaid plea, much stress has been laid upon communication dated 7.03.2024 (Annexure R-6), whereby Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand, while apprising factum with regard to alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner during his tenure as Director of the department concerned also mentioned that appropriate action in accordance with law is being taken against the petitioner and since petitioner has given his re-joining by misstating the facts, appropriate action in accordance with law be also taken by respondent-University as well as State of Uttarakhand. 14. Reply filed by State of Uttarakhand may be very relevant for adjudication of the case at hand and as such, relevant paras of the same are reproduced herein below:- “2. That the reply respondent respectively submits that the relationship between the petitioner and the replying respondent effectively came to an end upon the unilateral act of the petitioner in repatriating himself to his” parent department” i.e. Y.S.Parmar University, Nauni, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner voluntarily relinquished the deputation services of the State of Uttarakhand which was due to end on 31.01.2024, and no formal relieving order was issued by the “borrowing department” i.e., Secretary Agriculture 11 and Farmers Welfare , Government of Uttarakhand. The petitioner relinquished his charge by unilaterally informing the Chief Secretary to the Government of Uttarakhand via letter dated 31.01.2024 (copy of Charge Relinquishing Report is marked as Annexure P-16); 3. That it is further submitted that the petitioner was under suspension by the borrowing department at that relevant time, in terms of Suspension Order letter bearing No.522 dated 12.06.2023 (Copy of suspension order letter bearing No.522 dated 12.06.2023 is marked as Annexure P-9) and later vide letter bearing No.299/2023 dated 12.06.2023 and letter bearing No.134260/2023 dated 03.07.2023, charge sheet were issued, and was not in receipt of any salary or other emoluments from the replying respondent with effect from 31.01.2024, being the date on which his deputation tenure would have formally ended; 4. That it is submitted that the said suspension was subject to an ongoing inquiry being conducted by the competent authorities of the borrowing department in the State of Uttarakhand. Accordingly, the relationship between the petitioner and the replying respondent is, at best, notional and devoid of any substantive services connection. The Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand has already upheld this legal position in WP(S/B) 307/2024, and the replying respondent is duly abiding by the same. (Copy of the judgment dated 11.03.2024 is annexed as Annexure P-23); 5. That in view of the above, no relief as sought by the petitioner can be claimed or enforced against the replying respondent, as the replying respondent presently holds no control over the service conditions of the petitioner. The petition, as framed, is therefore, liable to be dismissed against the replying respondent; 12 6. That the deponent has read and understood the contents of the writ petition (hereinafter referred to as “ the said petition”) and the affidavit as well as the annexures appended thereto and has also gone through the relevant record available in the department and as such, he is well conversant with the facts deposed below.” 15. If the reply filed by State of Uttarakhand is read in its entirety, it clearly suggests that suspension of the petitioner was subject to ongoing inquiry being conducted by competent authority of the borrowing department in the State of Uttarakhand, as result thereof, relationship between petitioner and respondent is notional and devoid of any substantive service condition. Aforesaid stand taken by State of Uttarakhand has been already taken note by High Court of Uttarakhand, Nainital in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, which otherwise finds mention in the reply filed by the State of Uttarakhand. Most importantly, State of Uttarakhand in its reply has stated that at present it does not have any control over the services of the petitioner, meaning thereby, so called unilateral relinquishment of charge qua the post of Director held by the petitioner in the State of Uttarakhand stands accepted by the State of Uttarakhand. 16. Though, respondent-State of Himachal Pradesh has not filed any reply, but its stand is akin to the stand taken by the respondent-University that till the time suspension is not revoked and 13 formal relieving orders are not issued, petitioner cannot be permitted to re-join in the parent department i.e. respondent-University. 17. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and gone through the record carefully. 18. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate, is that once State of Uttarakhand by way of filing reply in this Court and supplementary affidavit before High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital has clarified that after relinquishment of charge from the post of Director by the petitioner, it has no control over the service conditions of the petitioner, there is no requirement, if any, of passing of formal relieving order. Mr.Goel, further argued that once it is not in dispute that period of deputation stands expired and thereafter no extension, if any, was ever granted by the parent department, there was no requirement, if any, for the respondent- State of Uttarakhand to pass formal order of relieving, rather with the expiry of deputation period, petitioner is deemed to have been repatriated to his parent department. While referring to communication dated 07.03.2024(Annexure R-6) upon which much stress has been laid by respondent-State of Himachal Pradesh and respondent- University, Mr. Goel, submitted that the same has lost its relevance on 14 account of judgment dated 11.03.2025 passed by High Court of Uttarakhand, wherein having taken note of stand taken by State of Uttarakhand, Court has virtually accepted factum of relinquishment of charge by the petitioner from borrowing department. Learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner while refuting the submission made by Mr. Ramesh Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondent-University that present petition is not maintainable on account of decision rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3702 of 2024, submitted that same has lost its efficacy on account of subsequent judgment dated 11.03.2025 rendered by High Court of Uttarakhand in Writ Petition(S/B) No.307 of 2024, wherein State of Uttarakhand itself accepted factum with regard to cessation of relationship of employer and employee interse petitioner and State of Uttarakhand. He submitted that once State of Uttarakhand has repeatedly accepted factum of cessation of relationship of employer employee interse petitioner and State of Uttarakhand, plea of revocation of suspension order and passing of formal relieving order is of no consequence. 19. While referring to judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3702 of 2024, Mr. Goel, further argued that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had reserved liberty to petitioner to justify his stand before the respondent-University that despite of 15 continuance of his suspension by Uttarakhand Government, he was still eligible to rejoin the parent department, which actually stands proved with judgment dated 11.03.2025 passed by High Court of Uttarakhand in Writ Petition(S/B) No.307 of 2024. 20. Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondent- University and respondent-State again reiterated their respective stand that till the time formal relieving order is not passed and letter dated 7.3.2024 (Annexure R-6) is not revoked, petitioner herein cannot be permitted to re-join. 21. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Senior Counsel representing the State of Uttarakhand, while referring to the reply filed by State of Uttarakhand, reiterated that on account of unilateral relinquishment of charge qua the post of Director held by the petitioner in the State of Uttarakhand, respondent- State of Uttarakhand has no control over the service condition of the petitioner. He further submitted that otherwise also, after expiry of deputation period, there was otherwise no requirement, if any, for State of Uttarakhand to pass formal order of relieving. He further submitted that relationship between petitioner and State of Uttarakhand is, at best, is notional for the purpose of inquiry, but certainly same cannot be said to be substantive employer- employee relationship. 16 22. True, it is that petitioner, who admittedly was working against the post of Professor in the respondent-University, was sent on deputation for a period of one year initially, which was subsequently extended for further period of two years, but there is nothing on record to suggest that beyond period of three years any extension was ever granted by the respondent-University, meaning thereby petitioner at best could have stayed on deputation with respondent-University for a period of three yeas i.e. w.e.f.01.02.2021 to 31.01.2024. Before afore period of deputation could come to an end, two separate departmental charge sheets came to be served upon the petitioner on account of his having committed alleged irregularities, but before same could be taken to logical end, petitioner herein relinquished the charge of Director, Horticulture and Food Processing, Uttarakhand on 31.01.2024 i.e. on the date deputation period was otherwise going to expire. Immediately, after having relinquished charge of post, as detailed hereinabove, in the State of Uttarakhand, petitioner gave his joining to the respondent-University, which at first instance was accepted by the Head of the Department, but subsequently same was made conditional subject to clarification by Government of Himachal Pradesh. True, it is that Government of Himachal Pradesh advised respondent-University to clarify from the State of Uttarakhand whether suspension of the petitioner has been 17 revoked or any formal order, thereby relieving petitioner has been passed or not. Vide communication dated 7.3.2024 (Annexure R-6), State of Uttarakhand, while responding to aforesaid queries of the respondent-University, though nowhere stated factum of passing relieving order but advised respondent-University to take appropriate action in accordance with law against the petitioner for his having misstated the facts. There is nothing on record to suggest that pursuant to aforesaid communication proceedings, if any, were ever initiated by the respondent-University against the petitioner. Since despite petitioner having furnished joining, he was not being given work and salary, he approached this Court by way of CWP No.3702 of 2024, which was dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to justify his stand before the respondent-University that despite of continuance of his suspension by Uttarakhand Government, he was still eligible to rejoin the parent department after relinquishing the charge of deputation. After passing of aforesaid judgment, petitioner herein approached State of Uttarakhand to pass formal order, thereby relieving him from the post in question, but since such prayer was not accepted, he approached High Court of Uttarakhand by way of Writ Petition(S/B) No.307 of 2024, which ultimately came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 11.03.2025 passed by Principal Division Bench. In afore proceedings, State of Uttarakhand filed affidavit dated 18 26.11.2024, stating therein that after 31.03.2024 the period of deputation has come to an end and the petitioner has informed State Government about his being relieved unilaterally w.e.f.31.01.2024, therefore, technically he is not an employee of State of Uttarakhand from the said date and as such, State is not liable to pay him any subsistence allowance after the said date. Taking note of aforesaid affidavit, High Court of Uttarakhand disposed of the petition as having been rendered infructuous observing that writ petition has “rendered infructuous as the reliefs sought have primarily been resolved by the petitioner’s unilateral action of relieving himself from the post and the affirmation by the respondent (supra) i.e. respondent-University. 23. In nutshell, High Court of Uttarakhand taking note of supplementary affidavit by the respondent-University arrived at a conclusion that after 31.01.2024, there is no employer- employee relationship interse the petitioner and State of Uttarakhand and as such, no relief, as prayed for, can be granted, rather same stands extended to the petitioner pursuant to the admission made by the respondent-University in afore affidavit. Aforesaid findings/ observations given by High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital stand substantiated with the filing of affidavit of State of Uttarakhand in the instant proceedings, as has been reproduced hereinabove. 19 24. If the reply filed by the respondent-State in the instant proceedings is perused in its entirety, it clearly suggests that w.e.f. 31.01.2024 tenure of deputation had come to an end and thereafter, there was no relationship of employer-employee interse petitioner and State of Uttarakhand. In afore affidavit, State of Uttarakhand has categorically stated that after date, on which, actually petitioner had relinquished the charge unilaterally, there is no control, if any, of the respondent-State over the service conditions of the petitioner, rather thereafter, for all intent and purposes, he is deemed to be employee of respondent-University. If it is so, this Court sees no reason that why respondent-University should not accept joining which was actually furnished by the petitioner on 01.02.2024 (Annexure P-17). 25. True, it is that some disciplinary proceedings / criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioner on account of his having committed alleged irregularities in the State of Uttarakhand, while holding post of Director, but same cannot be said to have any bearing or effect upon petitioner’s rejoining in the parent department, where there is definitely no complaint, if any, against the petitioner. Action qua the alleged misdeeds of the petitioner while holding the charge of Director in the State of Uttarakhand is to be taken by the State of Uttarakhand, which by way of affidavit filed before this Court as well as High Court of Uttarakhand has clarified that 20 w.e.f.31.01.2024, there is no relationship of employer-employee interse petitioner and respondent and it has no control over the service condition of the petitioner, rather relationship, if any, is on notional basis for conclusion of inquiry, which is still pending. Whether on account of indictment of the petitioner, if any, in disciplinary/criminal proceedings pending adjudication in the State of Uttarakhand, petitioner can continue in service in respondent- University is a question, which shall be decided at relevant time but certainly that cannot be a basis at this stage to deny joining to the petitioner in the parent department. Moreover, this Court finds that respondent-State of Uttarakhand has been taking contradictory stands. On one hand, vide communication dated 7.3.2024 respondent-University has been informed that no formal relieving order has been passed but on the other hand while filing affidavit before this Court as well as High Court of Uttarakhand it has stated that after 31.01.2024 there is no relationship of employer-employee interse petitioner and State of Uttarakhand and there is no control, if any, of State of Uttarakhand over the service condition of the petitioner. 26. Once respondent-State of Uttarakhand has categorically stated before this Court as well as High Court of Uttarakhand that w.e.f.31.01.2024 petitioner is not its employee, coupled with the fact 21 that vide communication dated 12.03.2007 (available at page No.241 of the paper book) Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand has apprised all administrative heads of various departments of State of Uttarakhand that moment period of deputation comes to an end deputationists shall be sent back to the parent department unless period of deputation is extended by parent department, action of the respondent-University in not permitting the petitioner to join cannot be held to be justifiable. In the instant case, period of deputation, which otherwise came to an end on 31.01.2024, was never extended by the respondent-University. 27. Moreover, this Court finds that there is no communication, if any, from the respondent-State of Uttarakhand, thereby cautioning respondent-University to not permit the petitioner to rejoin his parent department, rather factum of not issuing relieving order has been conveyed vide communication dated 7.3.2024 with further advise to take appropriate action in accordance with law against the petitioner for his misstating the facts. On one hand, respondent-State of Uttarakhand has washed its hand by disowning the petitioner on account of his having relinquished the charge himself on 31.01.2024 and on the other hand, respondent-University despite there being ending of deputation period is refusing to take him back in service, as a result thereof, petitioner is on the verge starvation. 22 Neither he is getting any subsistence allowance from State of Uttarakhand nor is he being paid any salary by the respondent- University after his having rejoined the department. 28. Leaving everything aside, it is well settled that once period of deputation, unless extended, comes to an end, employee sent on deputation is deemed to be repatriated and for that purpose no formal orders are required to be passed. If it is so, after 31.01.2024 there was otherwise no requirement, if any, for the respondent-State of Uttarakhand to pass formal order of relieving the petitioner from deputation. 29. In peculiar facts and circumstances, whereby allegedly petitioner had committed some irregularities and on account of the same, departmental proceedings/criminal proceedings stood initiated against him, State of Uttarakhand of its own could have approached respondent-University thereby praying to extend the period of deputation, so that during such period disciplinary/criminal proceedings could have been taken to their logical end. However, such procedure was never adopted, rather respondent-State of Uttarakhand permitted petitioner to rejoin the respondent-University by not writing to respondent-University that period of deputation may be extended enabling respondent-State of Uttarakhand to complete the disciplinary proceedings. 23 30. Though, Mr. Ramesh Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondent-University attempted to argue that while giving his joining petitioner concealed factum with regard to his suspension as well as initiation of disciplinary proceedings, but that may not be of much relevance for the reasons stated hereinabove, rather in that situation, respondent-State of Uttarakhand ought to have been more vigilant and should have written communication to the respondent-University that deputation period is required to be extended so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the petitioner. Since such procedure has been not adopted and petitioner has been permitted to relinquish the charge of Director, coupled with the fact that deputation period has expired on 31.01.2024, there was otherwise no occasion, if any, for the respondent-University not to permit the petitioner to furnish his joining in the respondent-University, where admittedly no disciplinary proceedings or criminal case stand registered against the petitioner. Otherwise also, very purpose and object of suspension order passed by respondent-University is/was to ensure that the petitioner does not tamper with the evidence or material which can be otherwise used against him in disciplinary/criminal proceedings. Since petitioner himself after his being suspended has relinquished the charge of that 24 office and has rejoined the respondent-University, there was no requirement of keeping the petitioner under suspension. 31. Though, at this stage, Mr. Ramesh Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondent-University vehemently argued that present petition is not maintainable on account of judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3702 of 2024, but having perused aforesaid judgment, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the respondent- University for the reason that earlier writ petition was filed in altogether different circumstances, whereas present petition has been filed after filing of an affidavit by the respondent-State of Uttarakhand in the High Court of Uttarakhand stating therein that w.e.f. 31.01.2024, there is no relationship of employer-employee interse petitioner and State of Uttarakhand, which fact has been further substantiated by filing of affidavit by State of Uttarakhand in the instant proceedings. 32. Moreover, if the judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court is read in its entirety, liberty was reserved to the petitioner in those proceedings to justify his stand before respondent- University that despite of continuance of his suspension by Uttarakhand Government , he is still eligible to rejoin the parent department, which petitioner has successfully justified by producing 25 copy of judgment dated 11.03.2025 passed by High Court of Uttarakhand in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 307 of 2024, wherein High Court of Uttarakhand taking note of supplementary affidavit filed by State of Uttarakhand has held that relief otherwise prayed for by the petitioner stands granted to him. Factum with regard to relinquishment of charge against the post in question and re-affirmation of the same by respondent-State has been also taken note by High Court of Uttarakhand in its judgment dated 11.03.2025. 33. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly same is allowed. The impugned orders dated 24.05.2024 and 29.03.2024 are quashed and set-aside and respondent-University is directed to permit the petitioner to work against the post in question qua which he was working at the time of his being sent to deputation on the basis of joining furnished by him on 01.02.2024 and he shall be entitled for all consequential benefits. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 19, 2025 (shankar)