1 2025:CGHC:37682 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3020 of 2023 1 - Gaurav Pathak S/o Shri Sudhir Pathak Aged About 35 Years Occupation - Fireman, Residence Of Bilaspur Road, Behind Dehati Hotel Ambikapur District - Surguja Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shankar Lal Yadav S/o Late Shri Ram Khelawan Yadav Aged About 34 Years Occupation Fireman, Residence Of Sheetla Ward Joda Talab Ambikapur District - Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Police Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director General Of Home Gards, Fire Brigade And Emergencey Services And Revenue Desaster Management, Head Office Sector 19, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Collector, Ambikapur District - Surguja Chhattisgarh. 4 - The District Fire Brigade Officer And District Commandant, Fire Brigade Unit, Home Guards Ambikapur, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Divisional Commandant, Home Guards, Surguja Division Ambikapur, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Municipal Corporation Ambikapur Through- Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Ambikapur District - Surguja Chhattisgarh. 7 - Nodal Officer, Maa Mahamaya Airport Darima Ambikapur District - Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.02 16:51:44 +0530 2 For Petitioners : Mr. Abhinav Dubey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 31.07.2025 1 The petitioners have filed this petition with the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioners. 10.2 This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 23.04.2023 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent no. 4. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit. 10.4 Cost of the petition may also been given.” 2 Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 23.04.2023 issued by respondent No.4, whereby the petitioners have been transferred on deputation and directed to join under the Airport Director, Darima Airport/Ambikapur, is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the petitioners are employees of respondent No.6 and are presently serving on deputation under respondent No.4. Without obtaining the consent of the petitioners or the parent department, respondent No.4 has no authority to further transfer the petitioners 3 on deputation to the office of respondent No.7. Such action is in clear violation of the Fundamental Rules, which mandate prior consent of the employee and the lending department before any deputation can be effected. The unilateral decision to transfer the petitioners to a third organization without following due process, and in the absence of any administrative exigency, amounts to arbitrary exercise of power and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 23.04.2023 be quashed. 3 On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. 4 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 5 It has been reflected from the record that during the pendency of the writ petition, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.05.2023, has been granted an order of stay in favour of the petitioners to the effect that the petitioners were sent on deputation without their consent, efrect and operation of the order impugned (Annexure P-1) was directed to remain stayed till the next date of hearing. 6 In view of the above facts and circumstances, and taking into consideration the interim protection granted by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.05.2023, whereby the 4 operation and effect of the impugned order dated 23.04.2023 was stayed on the ground that the petitioners were deputed without their consent, this Court finds substance in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. 7 It is well settled that deputation necessarily requires the consent of the employee concerned and the concurrence of both the lending and borrowing departments. In the present case, no such consent has been placed on record. The impugned order has, therefore, been passed in violation of the Fundamental Rules governing deputation and principles of natural justice. 8 Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.04.2023 is quashed. However, it shall be open to the State/respondent authorities to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, if the exigencies of administration so require, after obtaining due consent of the petitioners and in consultation with the parent department, in accordance with the relevant rules. 9 With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh