IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15415 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.9.2025 _______________________________________________________ Deepak Upadhyay …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working a Law Officer, Head Office, Dharamshala, is aggrieved of order dated 29.9.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been deputed to Zonal Office, Una, to expedite the recovery proceedings of Una Zone. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Umesh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner is that in no circumstance, petitioner herein, who for all intents and purposes, was deputed as Law Officer in Head Office could be sent on deputation to Zonal Office Una. Mr. Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner states that otherwise also, deputation, if any, of the petitioner to Una is impermissible, especially when no consent was ever taken from him. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Ms. Sneh Bimta, Advocate, appearing for respondent-Bank, argued that bare perusal of order dated 19.9.2025, clearly reveals that petitioner is not being sent on deputation, rather for a limited period, he has been sent to Zonal Office, Una, for expeditious recovery of loans. He states that at present, 27% of NPA cases amounting to RS. 221 crores, pertain to Una, and as such, petitioner, who is a law officer, has been sent to Una to ensure expeditious recovery of loans. He states that neither petitioner has been sent on deputation nor he has been transferred, rather he has been simply deputed at Una for a limited period and as and when work of recovery proceedings at Una is completed, petitioner shall be called back to Dharamshala. Mr. Shreedhar, further states that bare perusal of rules contained in Chapter-9 of the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd Rules (in short “The Rules”), clearly reveals that any person appointed in the bank can be posted to work in the head office of the bank or in any of its branches or vice-versa or at an place where the Bank has any business. 4. Though Mr. Umesh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner repeatedly attempted to argue that petitioner is being sent on deputation without his consent, but such argument of him deserves outright rejection for the reason that bare perusal of impugned order nowhere suggests that he has been sent on deputation, rather 3 petitioner has been sent to Zonal Office Una to expedite the recovery proceedings. Moreover, Mr. Shreedhar, has already made a statement before this Court that neither petitioner has been transferred nor sent on deputation, rather for a very limited period, he has been sent to Zonal Office, Una, for expeditious recovery proceedings. 5. Moreover, having perused provision contained in Chapter 9 of the aforesaid Rules, this Court finds that any person appointed in the bank may be posted to work in the head office of the bank or in any of its branches or vice-versa or at an place where the Bank has any business. Provision contained in the aforesaid Chapter-9 further reveals that an employee can be sent on deputation also but through a different society. 6. Though Mr. Umesh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that since petitioner has been appointed as Law Officer in the Head Office coupled with the fact that he has been appointed as Chief Legal Advisor to Chairman of the bank, it may not be in the interest of respondent-bank to send him to Una, however, this Court is not impressed with the aforesaid submission of Mr. Kanwar, especially in view of the provisions contained in Chpater-9, which empowers higher authorities to depute any official of the bank either in head office or any of its branch. 4 7. Leaving everything aside, once petitioner’s posting to Una is for a limited period and in his official capacity, he is otherwise required to work in any part of the State where branches of the bank exist, this court sees no reason to interfere in the impugned order, which otherwise appear to be issued totally in conformity with rules of the bank. 8. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition fails and dismissed being devoid of any merit, alongwith pending applications, if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 24, 2025 manjit