HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 13536 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned State Counsel for opposite party No.1 and Mr. Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.2 to 4. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 07.11.2025 whereby petitioners being currently employed with Power Corporation have been directed to be repatriated to the original post of Enforcement Team. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that impugned order has been passed without seeking any approval of the competent authority in terms of judgment rendered by Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Singh & others v. Union of India & others [(2006) 8 SCC 1] and therefore the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction. 4. It is also submitted that impugned order has not been passed indicating any public interest or administrative exigency. He has also placed reliance on Government Order dated 02.12.2017 whereby period of deputation can be extended for a further period of two years. He submits that the opposite parties have not provided any option to the petitioners. It is also submitted that petitioners were entitled to be posted on the Enforcement Team for a period of one year which however has been curtailed by means of impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for opposite party No.1 has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners with the submission that the judgment rendered in the case of Praksh Singh & others (supra) would be inapplicable in the present facts and circumstances which does not pertain to the police department. 6. Mr. Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.2 to 5 has been provided written instructions dated 13.11.2025 and submits that approval from the Establishment Board even otherwise has already been taken on 31.10.2025 in pursuance of constitution of the Establishment Board on 10.10.2025. He has also Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : M.P. Raju Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Neerav Chitravanshi Rajeev Kumar Mishra, Pno No. 902430497 And 3 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) referred to the original Deputation Order dated 07.03.2021 to submit that maximum period of two years only was provided for deputation and specifically states that upon expiry of aforesaid period, the deputation would automatically come to an end without any further order. 7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioners were sent on deputation to the Power Corporation for a maximum period of two years from the date of order of deputation. It is evident that there are several orders pertaining to petitioners with regard to deputation in the Power Corporation with the stipulation that maximum period of deputation would be two years. 8. It is admitted that as of now, petitioners have already completed their maximum period of deputation as prescribed as a condition in the deputation order which was never challenged by the petitioners while accepting the deputation. In view thereof, petitioners are clearly barred by principle of estoppel from raising any grievance with regard to period of deputation. 9. So far as the aspect of applicability of the Government Order is concerned, it is prerogative of the department, in administrative exigency, either to end the period of deputation or to extend the same and merely by issuance of the Government Order dated 02.12.2017 no vested right for continuance of deputation can be provided to the petitioners. 10. In view of discussion made here-in-above, petition fails and is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 21, 2025 lakshman WRIA No. 13536 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench