1 CGHC010135642022 2026:CGHC:37770 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2815 of 2022  Sohan Lal Verma S/o Late Khorbahra Ram Verma Aged About 52 Years Working As Deputy Ranger, Dantewada, Forest Rang Dantewada, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Forest And Climate Change Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest And Prominent Forest Fource Chhattisgarh, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Managing Director District Co-Operative Forest Produce Union Ltd. District- Dantewada (C.G.) 4. Chief Conservator Of Forest Jagdalpur, Circle- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (Jagdalpur) (C.G.) 5. The Ranger Forest Circle Geedam, District- Dantewada (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24.08 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned orders dated 13.04.2022 (Annexure P-1 & P-2) passed by the respondent no. 2 & 3.” 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Range Officer vide order dated 01.01.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner was SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.08.25 17:49:30 +0530 2 sent on deputation from Forest Division Dantewada to District Union Bijapur vide order dated 20.01.2022. The respondent No. 2 modified the order dated 20.01.2022 and shifted the petitioner from District Union Bijapur to District Union Dantewada vide order dated 01.02.2022. Subsequently vide order dated 13.04.2022, earlier order was again modified and he was sent on deputation to District Union Sukma and subsequently he was relieved on the same date from District Union Dantewada. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner has been sent to the new place of posting on deputation without obtaining his consent, and he has been shifted out of District. It is also argued by Mr. Verma that pursuant to order dated 01.02.2022, he had resumed his duty at District Dantewada. It is also submitted by Mr. Verma that interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner on 21.04.2022, which is still operating. Mr. Verma would argue that as there was no consent from the petitioner before passing order of deputation, order Annexure P/1. Therefore order Annexure P/1 and subsequent relieving order Annexure P/2 are bad in law. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose. He would contend that there was no requirement to obtain consent of employee according to provisions of Fundamental Rule 110. He would not dispute the fact that the petitioner is still working at District Union, Dantewada. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. It is well settled principle of law that an employee or Government servant cannot be sent on deputation in absence of his consent. The Hon’ble 3 Supreme Court in the matter of Ms Sarita Singh vs. M/s Shree Infosoft Private Limited passed in Civil Appeal No. 346 of 2022 while dealing with the similar issue in para 11 held as under :- “11. The respondent as a claimant and plaintiff had to discharge the initial burden of establishing that the appellant was sent on deputation overseas. Significantly, while the terms and conditions of employment have been reduced to writing, there is no valid evidence on the basis of which it can be deduced that the appellant was sent on deputation overseas. On the contrary, it is the contention of the appellant that she was sent overseas for a business meeting. It is true that the appellant was represented in the proceedings in the suit by her spouse as the holder of a power of attorney. That however did not obviate the legal requirement that the burden must be discharged by the plaintiff of establishing its own case. There is no material evidence on the record to indicate that the appellant was sent on deputation. Deputation has a definite connotation in law. A two-judge Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Inder Singh(1997 8 SCC 372) has clarified the concept of deputation and stressed on the particular rights and liabilities that are associated with a deputation, which occurs only with the consent of the employee. Justice D P Wadhwa, speaking for the Court, held: “18. The concept of “deputation” is well understood in service law and has a recognised meaning. “Deputation” has a different connotation in service law and the dictionary meaning of the word “deputation” is of no help. In simple words “deputation” means service outside the cadre or outside the 4 parent department. Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside his cadre, that is to say, to another department on a temporary basis. After the expiry period of deputation the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he has earned promotion in his parent department as per the Recruitment Rules. Whether the transfer is outside the normal field of deployment or not is decided by the authority who controls the service or post from which the employee is transferred. There can be no deputation without the consent of the person so deputed and he would, therefore, know his rights and privileges in the deputation post. The law on deputation and repatriation is quite settled as we have also seen in various judgments which we have referred to above…” (emphasis supplied) A deputation would also involve a third party - the borrowing employer who discharges specific rights and obligations towards the employee and the lending employer. A three-judge Bench of this Court in Umapati Choudhary v. State of Bihar(1999 4 SCC 659) clarified the tripartite nature of a deputation in the following terms: “8. Deputation can be aptly described as an assignment of an employee (commonly referred to as the deputationist) of one department or cadre or even an organisation (commonly referred to as the parent 5 department or lending authority) to another department or cadre or organisation (commonly referred to as the borrowing authority). The necessity for sending on deputation arises in public interest to meet the exigencies of public service. The concept of deputation is consensual and involves a voluntary decision of the employer to lend the services of his employee and a corresponding acceptance of such services by the borrowing employer. It also involves the consent of the employee to go on deputation or not. In the case at hand all the three conditions were fulfilled…” Further, a two-judge Bench of this Court in Union of India v. S N Maity(2015 4 SCC 164) interpreted the terms of deputation strictly and disavowed acts of caprice on part of the employer. Justice Dipak Misra (as the learned Chief Justice then was) noted: 15. The controversy that has emerged in the instant case is to be decided on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles of law. We have already opined that it is not a case of simple transfer. It is not a situation where one can say that it is a transfer on deputation as against an equivalent post from one cadre to another or one department to another. It is not a deputation from a government department to a government corporation or one Government to the other. There is no cavil over the fact that the post falls in a different category and the first respondent had gone through the whole gamut of selection. On a studied scrutiny, the notification of 6 appointment makes it absolutely clear that it is a tenure posting and the fixed tenure is five years unless it is curtailed. But… this curtailment cannot be done in an arbitrary or capricious manner. There has to have some rationale. Merely because the words “until further orders” are used, it would not confer allowance on the employer to act with caprice.” (emphasis supplied) Thus, a deputation involves a tripartite consensual agreement between the lending employer, borrowing employer and the employee. Specific rights and obligations would bind the parties and govern their conduct. A transient business visit without any written agreement detailing terms of deputation will not qualify as a deputation unless the respondent were to lead cogent evidence to indicate that the appellant was seconded to work overseas on deputation. This aspect of the case has completely been ignored by all the three courts below. The claim was not substantiated having regard to the plain terms of the contract. 7. In the present case, there was neither any consent of the petitioner nor any material to show a consensual arrangement between the lending and borrowing authorities. Therefore, the order of deputation Annexure P/1 is bad in law. Accordingly, the orders Annexure P/1 and P/2 are hereby quashed. 8. In result, instant writ petition is hereby allowed. 9. Interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant