2025:UHC:9718 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS 1783/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Pundir, Deputy AG, for the State. (2) Petitioner was serving as Chief Administrative Officer in Dairy Development Department. He was taken on deputation as Section Officer in Finance & Audit Division of Uttarakhand Secretariat in 2017. Now, he has been repatriated by the Additional Secretary, Finance Audit Cell, Government of Uttarakhand, vide order dated 9.9.2025. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging his repatriation. (3) The impugned order refers to Government Order dated 1.4.2025. In para 4(5) of the said government order, it is mentioned that employees, who are due to retire within five years, shall not be sent on deputation and if they are on deputation, they will be compulsorily repatriated. (4) Learned State Counsel submits that order of repatriation has been passed by the Additional Secretary in compliance of the Government Order dated 1.4.2025. (5) Learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to an inter-departmental letter dated 25.4.2024, issued by the Chief Secretary, whereby the competent authority in Finance Department was asked not to unilaterally relieve the petitioner till decision is taken in the matter of his absorption in Finance Audit Cell. 2025:UHC:9718 (6) Learned State Counsel, however, submits that there is neither any statutory rule nor any government order, which permits absorption of a deputationist from other departments to Finance Audit Cell, therefore the inter-departmental correspondence between Chief Secretary and Secretary, Finance cannot be relied upon by the petitioner for challenging the order of repatriation. (7) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Additional Secretary, Finance has invited applications for filling the vacancy on the post of Section Officer by transfer/deputation, which is contrary to law as one deputationist cannot be replaced by another. (8) Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that petitioner is due to retire within less than ten months; his pension papers would have to be prepared and submitted, for which petitioner’s presence would be necessary in his parent department and if petitioner continues to serve in the Finance Audit Cell in Uttarakhand Secretariat, it will cause inordinate delay in payment of pension and other retiral dues. Learned State Counsel also refers to Rule 18 of Financial Handbook, Volume II, Part II to IV for contending that no government servant can hold lien on a post for more than five years. He submits that petitioner has served in Finance Audit Cell of Uttarakhand Secretariat continuously since 2017, which is contrary to the policy contained in para 3 of the Government Order dated 1.4.2025. (9) This Court do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Law is well settled that a deputationist cannot 2025:UHC:9718 claim absorption of his service in the borrowing organisation as a matter of right. Learned Counsel for the petitioner was not able to produce any statutory rule or government order, which permits absorption of service of the petitioner in Uttarakhand Secretariat. Thus the impugned order, whereby petitioner was asked to go back to his parent department, cannot be faulted. Writ petition thus fails and is dismissed. However, Secretary, Finance is directed to clear off all pending dues of the petitioner including arrears of salary within four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 4.11.2025 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3a eab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052 DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.11.04 17:17:23 +05'30' 2025:UHC:9718