- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:18245 WP No. 11440 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 11440 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. SANJAY P.R. AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O. LATE A.JANARDHANAN NAIR EMPLOYEE NO.20318, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (PP) BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK NOTE MUDRAN (P) LIMITED (BRBNMPL) NOTE MUDRAN NAGAR, MYSURU - 570003 MOBILE NO.8900478384 E- MAIL:SANJAYPR71 @ GMAIL.COM R/AT. NO.94, 1ST FLOOR, 3RD 'A' MAIN ROAD, 12TH CROSS, GOKULAM 2ND STAGE, MYSURU - 570002 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.A. KULKARNI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK NOTE MUDRAN (P) LIMITED (WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA) REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE NO.3 AND 4, 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, B.T.M LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560029 E MAIL:md@brbnmpl.co.in PHONE NO.080-66602002 2. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER CORPORATE OFFICE, BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK NOTE MUDRAN (P) LIMITED, NO.3 AND 4, 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, B.T.M. LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560029 Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18245 WP No. 11440 of 2025 E-MAIL: skpavani@brbnmpl.co.in PHONE: 9475269006 3. GENERAL MANAGER BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK NOTE MUDRAN (P) LIMITED, NOTE MUDRAN NAGAR, MYSURU - 570003 E MAIL: mysorepress@brbnmpl.co.in PHONE NO.0821-2582905 4. AERONAUTICAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVT. OF INDIA) PB NO.1718, VIMANAPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560017 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR (ADMN AND HR) E-MAIL: admin_hr.ada@gov.in PHONE NO.080-25087235 …RESPONDENTS (BY MS. TEJASWINI B.R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NITIN PRASAD., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 TO PERMIT THE DEPUTATION PERIOD OF THE PETITIONER WITH LIEN AGAINST HIS CURRENT POSTING IN HIS ORGANIZATION IN TERMS OF SECONDMENT SCHEME DATED 04.05.2016 ANNEXURE-S OF THE BRBNMPL AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to permit his deputation with lien against - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18245 WP No. 11440 of 2025 his current posting in the Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran (P) Limited in terms of secondment scheme dated 04.05.2016. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that the respondent No.4 published an advertisement to fill up various posts from amongst eligible group 'A' officers of the Central Government or State Government or Central Autonomous Bodies or Union Territory Administration or Public Sector Undertaking. The petitioner who was eligible for one such post, made a request to his controlling authority to grant permission to apply to the post of Joint Director in the respondent No.4. The controlling authority of the petitioner issued a 'no objection certificate' to the petitioner to apply for the post of Joint Director at respondent No.4 on deputation basis. Based on the no objection certificate, he applied to the respondent No.4. He intimated his controlling authority about receipt of a call letter from the respondent No.4 to appear for an interaction session on 18.01.2025. In so far as the documents sought for by the respondent No.4, an intimation was sent by the petitioner's controlling authority. The respondent No.4 later informed the controlling authority of the petitioner about the selection of the petitioner to the post of Joint Director (Materials management) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18245 WP No. 11440 of 2025 on deputation basis. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation and requested that he be relieved from Mysuru by or before 31.03.2025 to take up the assignment on deputation and holding the lien in his post. (ii) The petitioner claims that he sent emails to the respondent No.4 to extend the date of reporting to duty by 16.04.2025. The petitioner was then informed by his controlling authority that the Corporate Office, Bengaluru had refused to accept his request to relieve him to join the post at respondent No.4 on deputation and to hold lien in his current post. Thereafter, the petitioner made a request before the respondent No.1 to reconsider the decision. He also informed the respondent No.4 about the order passed by the respondent No.1 and requested the respondent No.4 to intervene and impress upon the respondent No.1 to relieve him from service. (iii) The petitioner claims that the respondent No.4 was informed by his employer about the decision of respondent No.1 to refuse the request of the petitioner for relieving him under the secondment scheme of the company due to administrative exigencies. The petitioner is therefore, before - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18245 WP No. 11440 of 2025 this Court seeking for a direction to the respondent No.1 to relieve him so as to report at the deputed post and to retain his lien in the current post. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner elaborating the contentions urged in the writ petition submitted that the respondents have formulated the secondment scheme which allows its employees to hold lien in their current posts while they are sent on deputation. He contends that the secondment scheme allows the employees to take short stint of two to three years on deputation in a different organization. He therefore contends that the respondent No.1 after considering the request of the petitioner had granted no objection certificate and the petitioner was selected by the respondent No.4 as Joint Director (Materials Management). He therefore, contends that the respondents were bound to relieve the petitioner from Mysuru, so as to report to duty at the deputed post. 4. The writ petition is opposed by the respondents who have contended that the petitioner was informed from the date of issuance of the no objection certificate that he would be relieved depending upon the exigencies of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18245 WP No. 11440 of 2025 service/administrative convenience in the respondents' company. It is contended that even as per the secondment scheme relied upon by the petitioner, the deputation was not a matter of right, but was at the sole discretion of the competent authority and such discretion could be exercised depending upon the exigencies. It is therefore contended that the competent authority felt that the petitioner's service cannot be relieved, as they are required at the company of the respondents. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the above contentions. She further submitted that the respondents have now taken a policy decision to put on hold the secondment scheme, in view of the acute shortage of skilled man power in keen areas and that it was not prepared to lose experienced officers. She contends that several requests were made by the employees under the secondment scheme and that the controlling authority without properly examining the effect on productivity and also loss of valuable skilled human resources, were forwarding such requests. She contends that the competent authority has found that due to increased annual indents of bank notes, increased number of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:18245 WP No. 11440 of 2025 Civil, CSR and Research and Development projects in the company and also large number of retirements of experienced officers, there was a likelihood of production being affected. Therefore, she contends that the competent authority has taken a policy decision to put on hold the secondment scheme with immediate effect and that the same would be reviewed in due course. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, benefit of the secondment scheme could not be claimed as a matter of right by the employees and approval of such cases would depend upon the availability of man power and would solely be at the discretion of the respondents. This fact was made known to the petitioner even while no objection certificate was given to the petitioner, while seeking employment on deputation as Joint Director (Materials Management) at the respondent No.4. It is also relevant to note that when the application of the petitioner was forwarded - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:18245 WP No. 11440 of 2025 by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to the respondent No.4, it was specifically mentioned "his relieving under secondment scheme of the company for a period not exceeding three years, is subject to approval of competent authority and would depend primarily upon the exigencies of service/administration convenience." The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a certificate in the form which is prescribed in Annexure - IV to the secondment scheme, shows that the applicant if selected would be relieved immediately and that therefore, the secondment scheme will have to be examined in the context of certificate forwarded by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to respondent No.4, does not appeal to mind of this Court as relieving the petitioner was subject to approval of competent authority and the competent authority in terms of the order dated 07.04.2025 did not find it feasible to accede to the same, due to administrative exigencies. 8. This Court cannot go into the question of what the administrative exigencies were, as it is the respondent Nos.1 to 3 who have to finally decide whether the services of the petitioner could be lent to the respondent No.4. The petitioner having availed employment in the respondent Nos.1 to 3, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:18245 WP No. 11440 of 2025 cannot question the decision of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 not to relieve him. Be that as it may, since it is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents, that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have now taken a policy decision in terms of their letter dated 07.04.2025 to temporarily hold the secondment scheme with immediate effect and that the same would be reviewed in due course. The respondents are bound to consider the case of the petitioner, once they review the secondment scheme. 9. In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands disposed off on the following terms: (i) The relief sought for in the writ petition is not granted. However, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall ensure that soon after they review the secondment scheme and if it provides for deputation to any other organization, the first case that they shall take up for deputing any of its employees, to any deputational posts under the Central Government or Public Sector undertakings, shall be the case of the petitioner. This shall be complied strictly without any exception. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:18245 WP No. 11440 of 2025 10. It is needless to mention that if the post of Joint Director (Materials management) in the respondent No.4 remains vacant as on the date of review of secondment scheme by respondent Nos.1 to 3, then they shall take immediate steps to relieve the petitioner by maintaining his lien in his current position. 11. In view of disposal of main appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed off. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16